logo
What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.

What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.

USA Today11 hours ago

The U.S. Supreme Court preserved a key element of the Affordable Care Act that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients.
The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed.
The suit started in Texas where two Christian owned business and individuals argued that health insurance plans they buy shouldn't have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds, such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. But the legal issue at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether USPSTF is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect.
'The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect,' he wrote. 'So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President preserving the chain of command.'
The Health and Human Services Secretary has always appointed USPSTF members and ratified their recommendations, said MaryBeth Musumeci, teaching associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health.
But the ruling expanded on that authority by clarifying that the secretary could also remove members and block recommendations, she said.
Given that Kennedy had recently fired all 17 original members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert panel that issues health recommendations, Musumeci said 'there is reason to be worried.'
The secretary has never removed access to preventive services that have been proven to help people stay healthy nor have they "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," USPSTF chair Dr. Michael Silverstein said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY.
'While the HHS Secretary has long had authority over the USPSTF, historically they have only acted to increase access to preventive care, occasionally going beyond the evidence to secure enhanced coverage for preventive services," he said. "Given our shared focus on preventing cancer and chronic disease, we certainly hope that the Secretary will allow our current work to continue unimpeded, as it has thus far.'
Surprise move? RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants
Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health nonprofit, praised the SCOTUS decision because it meant that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care such as mental health screenings, cancer screenings, STI testing and important medications.
But she also called the ruling both an 'ending and a beginning.'
'It's the ending of the challenge but now it's the beginning of something that's going to unfold where we're going to see someone exercise control over this expert panel that has very strong opinions about… many aspects of medical care,' she said.
More details: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage
If Kennedy plans to target USPSTF, it's unclear what preventive services could be at risk, Musumeci said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final decision. Even if the secretary vetoes a new recommendation or revokes an existing one, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service.
America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing health insurance companies, plans to closely monitor the ongoing legal process but affirms that the SCOTUS ruling will not impact any existing coverage, according to an emailed statement sent to USA TODAY.
Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters.
Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@usatoday.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community

timean hour ago

Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. Susman Godfrey suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' In a statement, the firm called the ruling 'a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.' 'We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day,' the statement said. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.

Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey
Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey

Business Insider

time2 hours ago

  • Business Insider

Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey

President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey. In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed." "In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms. Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's ruling "is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling. "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority." The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision. Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court. While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours. In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings. In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion.

Former Paterson councilman rips AG for delays on 5-year-old election fraud case
Former Paterson councilman rips AG for delays on 5-year-old election fraud case

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Former Paterson councilman rips AG for delays on 5-year-old election fraud case

PATERSON — William McKoy, who spent 20 years on the City Council, says the state attorney general owes the people of Paterson an explanation for the five-year duration of the still-pending election fraud case against current Council President Alex Mendez. Otherwise, McKoy said the state prosecutors ought to start the trial against Mendez without further delay, assertions he made in statements issued to Paterson Press on June 26 and June 27. 'The residents' and voters' confidence in the justice system has been shattered and must be restored,' McKoy said. 'This is the sole responsibility of the attorney general.' McKoy has more than a passing interest in the was the other candidate in the 3rd Ward council election in May 2020 in which state investigators say Mendez and his campaign staff stole absentee ballots from home mailboxes, destroyed those with votes for McKoy, and replaced them with votes for Mendez. Mendez — who was in the Dominican Republic in recent days based on his social media postings — couldn't be reached for comment. He repeatedly has professed his innocence and predicted he will clear his name when the charges go to trial. McKoy and Mendez — longtime, bitter political rivals — seem to agree on one thing. They both say they are frustrated by the lack of progress in the case. But McKoy has accused Mendez of causing some of the delays, by doing such things as filing motions attempting to have the charges against him dismissed. 'It is entirely understandable that a candidate who competed against Mendez in the election at issue would be frustrated by the alleged criminal acts committed by the defendants,' said Daniel Prochilo, an Attorney General's Office spokesman. Prochilo noted that Mendez has been 'accused of attempting to deprive Paterson residents of a fair and impartially conducted election by submitting fraudulent ballots and vote-by-mail registrations, and of stealing the ballots of prospective voters with intent to deprive them of their votes.' 'But our office doesn't set the trial calendar,' the AG spokesman added. 'Cases are set for trial when the case has reached the appropriate point, as determined by the court. "The discovery of additional acts, additional charges, defense review of discovery, defense pretrial motions, and court rulings can take time before a trial is scheduled, and they are an essential part of the due process that must occur before a defendant's innocence or guilt can be decided,' Prochilo said. The AG's office also has a separate election fraud case from 2020 pending against Paterson's 1st Ward councilman, Michael Jackson. That prosecution has been stalled by a two-year cell phone passcode battle as authorities pursue witness tampering charges against Jackson after a witness recanted testimony, a judge said. In the Mendez case, the AG's office waited 40 months after filing the initial charges to expand the prosecution in Oct. 2023 to include criminal complaints against the councilman's wife, Yohanny, and two of his campaign workers, Omar Ledesma and Iris Ruiz. A grand jury rendered indictments against all the defendants at the end of April. Probable cause documents say investigators have a cooperating witness from within the Mendez camp as well as recordings and photos. 'It is clear that the attorney general has the necessary evidence and eyewitness accounts of his criminal voter fraud activities to successfully prosecute this case and convict him and his criminal associates on all charges,' McKoy said of Mendez. 'The only outstanding question is whether there is the willingness on the part of the attorney general to actually do so before his term in office comes to an end,' McKoy added. 'Having observed the attorney general's commitment to the defense of our civil liberties and constitutional protection under the law, I choose to believe that in the end, justice will ultimately prevail.' In Jun 2020, McKoy successfully filed a court challenge having Mendez's May 2020 election victory nullified. But Mendez defeated McKoy in a special election in Nov. 2020 and did the same in Paterson's 2024 ward contests. In the past, Mendez has dismissed McKoy's attacks on him regarding the election fraud charges as whining by what he called a 'sore loser.' Back in 2020, Mayor Andre Sayegh was one of McKoy's strongest backers in his condemnations of Mendez. Sayegh even made a political contribution to McKoy to help pay his legal fees in the court challenge. But Sayegh and Mendez have forged somewhat of an alliance in the past years, as Mendez became president of the council in July 2023. This article originally appeared on Former Paterson councilman rips AG over election fraud case

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store