Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 rejected the latest conservative challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services.
Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argued that the experts recommending some of the services health insurance must cover are so powerful that they must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, meaning a task force proposing these Obamacare services can continue to do so.
But their ruling could give more power to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to decide which services must be available without copays or deductibles.
"While today's ruling allows many Americans to breathe a sigh of relief, coverage for this vital care remains at risk," Zachary Baron and Andrew Twinamatsiko, directors of the Center for Health Policy and the Law, said in a statement. "All eyes will turn to the Trump administration to see if Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. directs the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to revisit or issue new recommendations that could erode access to preventive care.'
The benefit is one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act − commonly referred to as Obamacare − which has largely survived more than 2,000 lawsuits and multiple trips to the Supreme Court.
The latest challenge came from Texans who objected to the requirement that insurers cover the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. They raised religious objections to the drug, saying it encourages same-sex relationships.
A federal judge ruled the Christian businesses do not have to include PrEP in their insurance plans.
But the judge also said the makeup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommended coverage of PrEP and other preventive services, violates the Constitution's appointments clause. The clause requires presidential appointment and Senate confirmation for officials in significant positions of authority – such as cabinet secretaries and other top agency officials.
The Justice Department – both under the Biden and Trump administrations – fought back.
The government argued it's the Health and Human Services secretary, and not the task force, that has the 'ultimate responsibility' for whether the experts' recommendations become final. The secretary can fire task force members, review their recommendations and prevent recommendations from taking effect, the Justice Department said during April's oral arguments.
The attorney for the Christian businesses said the secretary doesn't have complete control over the task force. Under the law, he noted, tasks force members are supposed to be 'independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.'
The government said that independence requirement merely means the task force is supposed to make recommendations based on their impartial medical and public-health judgments.
The task force typically updates its recommendations every five years to account for medical advances or reflect new evidence of risk.
For example, in 2021, the task force extended recommendations for colon cancer screening to people 45 and older, instead of 50 and up, because of increased diagnoses in younger people.
Other services recommended since the ACA was passed include medications like statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings for certain adults, physical therapy for older people at risk of falling, and testing for hepatitis.
Before Obamacare, Americans used preventive services at only about half the recommended rate, according to the federal government.
Other services, such as vaccines, that are recommended by different experts, are in dispute under another aspect of the case that is still in the lower courts.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill sets rules on sales tax hike
GUILFORD COUNTY — State Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham and Senate president pro tem, is pushing a bill through the N.C. General Assembly to set guidelines on how revenue from a quarter-cent sales tax increase could be spent if the referendum is approved by Guilford County voters in the November 2026 general election. Berger, whose district includes parts of Guilford County, said Thursday that the Senate approved an amended version of House Bill 305 that addresses the referendum issue. During its meeting June 18, the Guilford County Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to yet again place the measure before county voters. Voters have rejected the quarter-cent sales tax increase six times in the past 20 years, most recently in the November 2024 general election. While the commissioners have said they want to use the additional revenue to support education, existing law doesn't restrict the use of funds collected for education or any particular purpose, Berger said in a statement. House Bill 305 would specify funds collected through a quarter-cent sales tax increase can only be used for classroom teacher salary supplements, fire protection equipment and services, Guilford Technical Community College and a small amount for municipalities, Berger said. A quarter-cent sales tax increase is expected to generate $25 million annually. 'Voters going to the polls in November 2026 need to know exactly what they're being asked to vote on,' Berger said. 'House Bill 305 now provides them with information so they can make an educated decision. I believe putting strict guardrails on the revenue collected gives taxpayers relevant information and guarantees the funds will be used as promised.' Democratic Guilford County Board of Commissioners Chairman Skip Alston said that he welcomes Berger's initiative. Having the quarter-cent sales increase revenue specified for certain uses will reassure voters and make them more likely to cast a ballot for the referendum, Alston told The High Point Enterprise. House Bill 305 now goes back to the House for a concurrence approval vote. Since the legislation is a local bill, it isn't subject to veto oversight by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Harvard, University of Toronto make contingency plan to allow foreign students to study if barred from US
Harvard University and the University of Toronto have revealed a contingency plan that would allow select international Harvard graduate students to continue their education in Canada if the Trump administration's plan to impose US visa restrictions and prevent them from re-entering the US is upheld by the courts. The US Department of Homeland Security moved last month to terminate Harvard's ability to enroll international students after the university allegedly failed to provide extensive behavioral records of student visa holders the agency had requested, including footage of protest activity involving student visa holders, even if it's not criminal, and the disciplinary records of all student visa holders in the past five years. A federal judge has since blocked the government's effort to end the university's visa program. Because of potential US visa challenges, students at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government who may be unable to return to the US will be given the option to continue their studies through a visiting student program at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. The program would combine courses taught by Kennedy and Munk faculty members, according to the deans of both institutions. The contingency plans were released to ease student uncertainty, but will only be used if there is enough demand from students unable to enter the US over potential visa or entry restrictions, the deans said in a statement. The Trump administration has moved to cut billions of dollars in federal research funding for Harvard. 'With these contingency plans in place, HKS will be able to continue to provide a world-class public policy education to all of our students, even if they cannot make it to our campus this year,' Harvard Kennedy School Dean Jeremy Weinstein said. The program will be available to international students who have already completed one year at the US campus. The Trump administration has moved to cut billions of dollars in federal research funding for Harvard, in part, over its handling of alleged antisemitism and violence on campus amid anti-Israel protests sparked by the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Harvard University and the University of Toronto released contingency plans to ease student uncertainty about potential visa restrictions. AFP via Getty Images Weinstein announced staff layoffs at Kennedy in a recent email to faculty and staff, citing 'unprecedented new headwinds' creating 'significant financial challenges,' including a 'substantial proposed increase in the endowment tax' and 'massive cuts to federal funding of research.' Over the past five years, more than 50% of Kennedy students have come from outside the US, the school's media office said. A total of 739 students from 92 countries in programs aimed at developing leadership in public policy and government are enrolled at the school, according to the Harvard International Office website.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What we know so far about how Trump's deportation effort is unfolding in the Bay Area
As of last month, Carolina's quest for asylum from violence in her Indigenous Guatemalan community seemed to be on track. The mother of two, who speaks only her native K'iche' language, had recently completed a check-in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and was living with her family in Contra Costa County. Then she received a surprise message on her ICE smartphone app. 'This is your ICE officer,' the June 2 message said, according to Carolina's attorney. 'We want you to come in for an appointment.' Carolina did as she was told, arriving at 630 Sansome St. in San Francisco the next day. It wasn't until after she was arrested that her attorney — who shared her story with the Chronicle and asked that only her first name be used for her protection — would learn the reason for the appointment: Carolina's asylum case had been set aside without a reason given, and an old removal order reinstated. Leaving behind her husband and two young children, Carolina was flown to an ICE detention center in Arizona that same day. Carolina is among dozens of people that local advocates estimate have been arrested in the Bay Area this month in stepped-up operations by federal immigration authorities, as the Trump administration seeks to fulfill a campaign promise by boosting deportation numbers. The effort has been both expansive and disjointed, advocates say, going beyond promises to deport 'the worst of the worst ' while splitting families apart and leaving state officials scrambling for answers. While federal authorities have long had discretionary power to reject asylum applications and other temporary protections that allow people to remain in the U.S., previous administrations have typically used the tactic on a case-by-case basis, said Carolina's attorney, Hayden Rodarte, who focuses on asylum applications for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. 'But this is the first time we're seeing it in this systematic way,' Rodarte said, noting that Carolina has no criminal history and is the main caregiver for her 10-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son. 'This is the new reality now.' ICE officials have declined to release information about key aspects of recent Bay Area immigration operations, including how many people have been arrested, who they are and why certain people have been targeted for removal. ICE has posted videos on social media of arrests throughout Los Angeles at workplaces and elsewhere, and photos of those detained with alleged criminal histories, but immigration attorneys said the arrests in the Bay Area target those who are trying to follow the process and show up to court. 'They should be showing up to their court hearing. It's the right thing to do but it's so scary,' said Roujin Mozaffarimehr, a managing partner at ImmiCore Law, a Silicon Valley firm. 'It's just really nerve-racking.' Inside the information vacuum, local networks of immigration advocates, attorneys and courtroom observers have worked to piece together everything they know about the cases, in hopes of better understanding how ICE operations are unfolding in the Bay Area. Catherine Seitz, the legal director at the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area, said people have been arrested when they show up for a meeting with ICE during their removal proceedings, an often lengthy legal process. Those meetings typically happen once a year; ICE checks that the cases are still pending and people typically return home, Seitz said. In addition, ICE is detaining people, including those seeking asylum, who arrive to immigration courts in San Francisco and Concord for scheduled hearings. In some cases, government attorneys are attempting to remove people who have been here for less than two years by requesting their cases to be dismissed. Immigration officials then detain people and pursue expedited removal proceedings, a measure that is typically used at airports or at the border, Seitz said. 'The confusing part is, under the last administration, (a dismissed case) was a good thing,' Seitz said, adding that people could then move forward with their asylum petitions. Seitz said that by using expedited removals, the government can typically move forward with deporting someone without going before a judge. This was the case for Carolina, who arrived in the U.S. along with one of her children in January 2024, joining her husband and older child. Carolina, who is from an Indigenous rural area of Guatemala, applied for asylum while citing the violence and persecution from the government there. 'What hurts us most is seeing the children suffer through this,' Carolina's sister said in a statement translated from K'iche' and provided by immigration attorneys. 'Our country has so much violence and we fled to this country with the hopes of finding joy here. But now we're seeing things worsen here with family separations.' There is no removal order for Carolina's husband and children, and the rest of the family's asylum cases remain pending before immigration court in Concord, Rodarte said. Because federal agencies have not released information on the arrests, advocates and attorneys have sought to use their networks to keep an unreliable count of the number of people detained. Last weekend, hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside of an ICE facility in San Francisco after immigrants said they had received orders to check in with the federal agency — spurring concerns from advocates that officials were planning to detain people with detention circumstances similar to Carolina's. Though a handful of immigrants showed up Saturday and Sunday, the office remained closed and ICE officials did not detain anyone, later saying that the closure was due to protests. ICE enforcement in the Bay Area has differed from Los Angeles, where the agency has targeted car washes and other workplaces, as well as gathering spots for day laborers such as Home Depot parking lots, to take people into custody — sparking conservative support along with widespread protests and accusations of racial profiling. Trump has waffled on the tactics, at times saying migrant workers are dangerous and take jobs that could go to Americans, and at other times saying they are ' almost impossible to replace.' But with the Department of Homeland Security this week reversing instructions for ICE to pause raids on farms, meat packing plants, restaurants and hotels, advocates for immigrants worry that the more aggressive actions ICE has taken in Los Angeles and parts of the Central Valley could happen in the Bay Area. Jason Houser, a former ICE chief of staff under President Joe Biden, said the Trump administration appears intent on reaching arrest quotas of 3,000 people per day. To achieve those goals, ICE has begun targeting immigrants who have been vetted and given a legal status to stay in the country, versus focusing on only those with criminal histories. There aren't enough people with criminal backgrounds to meet the quotas that the White House has set, Houser said. 'When you set quotas at the White House of arrests,' he said, 'ICE is going to take the easiest path to get their hands on people that they can bring into detention.' Since Trump's second term started, ICE said it has arrested over 236,000 people who were in the country illegally and deported more than 207,000, below the administration's goals but a significant increase from recent years. In his first term, Trump deported 1.5 million people, while Biden had deported 1.1 million people as of February 2024, according to Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. The detainment of more people poses other challenges for immigration courts. There are currently roughly 700 federal immigration judges — a decrease after Trump fired judges in California, Louisiana and other states — and a backlog of nearly 3 million pending cases due in part to a spike in people seeking asylum since 2022, according to government data. In many cases, it can take someone going through a removal proceeding nearly 10 years to get ahead of a judge, said Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles immigration attorney. 'If he's just going to put another million people a year in immigration court,' Shusterman said, 'it'll take 15 to 20 years to get a hearing.'
