Latest news with #AppointmentsClause
CNBC
2 days ago
- Health
- CNBC
Supreme Court endorses Obamacare panel that requires free preventive care
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to an Affordable Care Act provision that set up a panel to recommend preventive care services that insurers must provide at no cost to patients. The court, split 6-3, ruled in favor of the Trump administration, which was defending the law, saying the task force members are lawfully appointed under the Constitution's appointments clause. The task force members are under the supervision of the health and human services secretary, a position held by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which addresses any concerns that it is not accountable to the executive branch, the court found in an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The task force members' appointment is "fully consistent" with the Appointments Clause, Kavanaugh said. He also noted that Kennedy can fire the task force members at any time and has the authority to review their recommendations. Three conservative justices dissented. The case arose from a challenge brought by Christian employers Braidwood Management and Kelley Orthodontics, in addition to several individuals, who objected on religious grounds to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's approval of no-cost coverage for the HIV prevention medication known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. The plaintiffs asserted that their religious rights were violated "by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman." But by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the legal issue was not the religious question raised under the Constitution's First Amendment, focusing solely on the appointments issue. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends a wide array of preventive services related to such issues as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. The challengers said the structure of the task force was unlawful because members were not properly appointed via a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. They added that the panel's members are intended to be independent and not under the control of the health and human services secretary as the government argued. The panel, composed of outside experts, has 16 members and was formed as an independent body appointed by the federal official who heads the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The dispute is the latest to reach the Supreme Court over the 2010 health care law — then-President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement — which Republicans have regularly attacked in court and sought to repeal. This time, the Trump administration defended the provision in question after having taken over the case from the Biden administration. The lawsuit was filed in 2020, leading to a federal judge in Texas issuing a ruling that said the structure of the task force was unconstitutional and all of its decisions should be considered invalid nationwide. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed that ruling somewhat last year. The Biden administration then took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has regularly weakened the power of federal agencies.
NBC News
2 days ago
- Health
- NBC News
Supreme Court endorses Obamacare panel that requires free preventive care
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to an Affordable Care Act provision that set up a panel to recommend preventive care services that insurers must provide at no cost to patients. The court, split 6-3, ruled in favor of the Trump administration, which was defending the law, saying the task force members are lawfully appointed under the Constitution's appointments clause. The task force members are under the supervision of the health and human services secretary, a position held by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which addresses any concerns that it is not accountable to the executive branch, the court found in an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The task force members' appointment is "fully consistent" with the Appointments Clause, Kavanaugh said. Three conservative justices dissented. The case arose from a challenge brought by Christian employers Braidwood Management and Kelley Orthodontics, in addition to several individuals, who objected on religious grounds to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's approval of no-cost coverage for the HIV prevention medication known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. The plaintiffs asserted that their religious rights were violated 'by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman." But by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the legal issue was not the religious question raised under the Constitution's First Amendment, focusing solely on the appointments issue. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends a wide array of preventive services related to such issues as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. The challengers said the structure of the task force was unlawful because members were not properly appointed via a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. They added that the panel's members are intended to be independent and not under the control of the health and human services secretary as the government argued. The panel, composed of outside experts, has 16 members and was formed as an independent body appointed by the federal official who heads the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The dispute is the latest to reach the Supreme Court over the 2010 health care law — then-President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement — which Republicans have regularly attacked in court and sought to repeal. This time, the Trump administration defended the provision in question after having taken over the case from the Biden administration. The lawsuit was filed in 2020, leading to a federal judge in Texas issuing a ruling that said the structure of the task force was unconstitutional and all of its decisions should be considered invalid nationwide. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed that ruling somewhat last year. The Biden administration then took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has regularly weakened the power of federal agencies.
Boston Globe
04-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Musk's D.C. departure may not shield him from the courts' accountability
Musk himself has indicated that he was leaving Washington but intended to still do work for DOGE Both statements support claims in dozens of ongoing legal challenges against Musk and the agency that Trump declared to be Musk's ' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Just two days before his farewell press conference at the White House, a federal court in Washington ruled that a challenge brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and her counterparts in 13 other states against DOGE and Musk Advertisement The government defends its actions by claiming that DOGE was merely a reorganization of an existing office and that Musk was a 'special government employee,' limited to working 130 days in a 365-day period, under federal law. The press conference was, not coincidentally, held on the 130th day of Musk's tenure. Advertisement But Trump's said the quiet part out loud: Musk still holds sway in a way that undermines the administration's claim that he was only a temporary governmental employee who didn't need Senate confirmation. And in an order two days earlier allowing the states' suit to proceed, Washington-based US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote that even if Musk left DOGE, 'that does not defeat an Appointments Clause claim.' 'President Trump may instruct another individual to lead DOGE and, if he does, States' Appointments Clause claim may also lie against that individual,' In allowing the claim that Trump exceeded his authority in creating DOGE without an act of Congress, Chutkan wrote: 'The President's power to act, and in turn executive power wielded by officers on behalf of the President, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.' The states' suit is just one of dozens challenging the actions by Musk and DOGE, including upward of Advertisement But if Campbell and other attorneys general are successful in their claim that Musk and DOGE exceeded their authority, it would cut to the very heart of DOGE's existence and render the actions it has taken null and void. Now, what is the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule against Musk and DOGE? Perhaps greater than you think. In a March 5 order, the court declined to intervene after a district court issued a temporary restraining order blocking DOGE's efforts to cancel previously-approved USAID funding. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented. 'Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?' Alito wrote in dissent. 'The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.' But it is worth noting that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also members of the court's conservative supermajority, joined the court's more liberal justices in ruling against the administration. While that move alone is no clear indicator that the court will come to the much broader conclusion that Musk and DOGE have no legal or constitutional authority, it's an important tea leaf. Of course, even if the states succeed, no court can fully undo the damage DOGE and Musk have done. The loss of federal jobs and benefits, the ripple effect those job losses will have Advertisement But Musk's farewell doesn't mean he waves goodbye to potential accountability by the courts. If the Supreme Court follows the Constitution and the rule of law, its long arm should reach him wherever he is. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
31-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Elon Musk's legal battles expected to outlast his time in White House
As Elon Musk leaves his formal US government position, dozens of legal challenges over the billionaire's powerful role in the Trump administration and the work of the Department of Government Efficiency will press ahead. Musk announced his departure earlier this week. At a White House press conference with President Donald Trump Friday, Musk said he'd continue to be a 'friend and an adviser.' He didn't elaborate on what that would entail. At least three lawsuits are pending that accuse Trump of unconstitutionally handing the Tesla Inc. and SpaceX chief executive officer the equivalent of a cabinet-level post over the past four months. Despite his exit, the challengers behind those cases are vowing to continue those fights. 'The case is absolutely relevant,' said Anjana Samant, a senior lawyer in the New Mexico Department of Justice, which is leading a group of states in one of the challenges. The Democratic state attorneys want a judge to invalidate actions they contend Musk unlawfully took to upend federal government operations and to declare that the DOGE project has gone far beyond what US law allows. The larger collection of lawsuits challenging Musk and DOGE activities to date are certain to continue. They include fights over DOGE access to Americans' personal information, whether the office is subject to public records laws and its role in canceling federal grants and contracts, dismantling agencies and firing workers. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields declined to comment on the administration's next steps in court but said government lawyers 'will continue to fight every single frivolous lawsuit that is brought our way.' A Justice Department spokesperson and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department has represented Musk and DOGE in court and would be expected to continue defending against allegations related to government work. Musk recently had criticized Trump's tax cut proposal but he and Trump praised each other during Friday's press event in the Oval Office. He also slammed the wave of court rulings against the administration, saying that 'immense judicial overreach' is 'undermining the people's faith in the legal system.' Some legal experts say Musk's formal exit could give the Justice Department grounds to argue for dismissal. Jeff Powell, a constitutional law professor at Duke University School of Law, said claims over the legality of Musk's position under the Constitution's Appointments Clause would no longer be valid once he's left government service. Powell called the claims 'meritless' to the extent the challengers want to hold Musk or DOGE responsible for communicating Trump's 'will' to Senate-confirmed officials who carried out the actions. 'Musk was a minion,' Powell said. 'The lawsuits may have other things, they may challenge the substantive validity of the reduction of force or cancellation of contracts, but that had nothing to do with Musk.' Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Action and a lead attorney in another case challenging Musk's appointment, cited the billionaire's comments that he would stay involved with the administration for the rest of Trump's term as a reason why it was 'very important' that he remain a party in court. 'Principal Officer' Courts can dismiss cases if circumstances change. When Trump lost the 2020 election and left office in January 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed long-running fights over whether Trump's business interests violated anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution. Musk joined the administration as a 'special government employee,' a temporary status set to expire this month. Legal challenges citing the Appointments Clause allege that Musk was functioning as a 'principal officer' similar to Senate-confirmed agency heads who only answer to the president. Each of the lawsuits include other claims and defendants. A Washington federal judge this week denied the government's request to dismiss the states' case over Musk's appointment. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote that there might be a viable Appointments Clause claim against whomever Trump put in charge of the DOGE effort, given the allegations that the position had evolved to influence multiple agencies. Brent Ferguson of the Campaign Legal Center, which brought a third constitutional challenge to Musk's authority in the administration that's also before Chutkan, said they were 'full steam ahead.' He said they wouldn't take Musk and White House officials at their word that he's no longer part of DOGE's work and demand evidence that proves his status. 'Regardless of the title that he's given by the government or what they say his role is, the real question for the Appointments Clause is, what actual power does he have,' Ferguson said. Dozens more lawsuits have been filed that relate to DOGE's activities. Judges have handed down a mix of rulings, in some cases greenlighting DOGE-affiliated staff's access to agency records and allowing cuts to federal spending and the workforce. In other cases, they've restricted DOGE from seeing Americans' information, revived spending and put fired federal personnel back on the job. Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a group involved in a number of lawsuits against the administration, said in a statement that they would continue to challenge the legality of what Musk accomplished. 'While he may have left Washington, the havoc he has created has not,' she said.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's Court Fights to Outlast His Time in the White House
(Bloomberg) -- As Elon Musk leaves his formal US government position, dozens of legal challenges over the billionaire's powerful role in the Trump administration and the work of the Department of Government Efficiency will press ahead. NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry NY Wins Order Against US Funding Freeze in Congestion Fight Musk announced his departure earlier this week. At a White House press conference with President Donald Trump Friday, Musk said he'd continue to be a 'friend and an adviser.' He didn't elaborate on what that would entail. At least three lawsuits are pending that accuse Trump of unconstitutionally handing the Tesla Inc. and SpaceX chief executive officer the equivalent of a cabinet-level post over the past four months. Despite his exit, the challengers behind those cases are vowing to continue those fights. 'The case is absolutely relevant,' said Anjana Samant, a senior lawyer in the New Mexico Department of Justice, which is leading a group of states in one of the challenges. The Democratic state attorneys want a judge to invalidate actions they contend Musk unlawfully took to upend federal government operations and to declare that the DOGE project has gone far beyond what US law allows. The larger collection of lawsuits challenging Musk and DOGE activities to date are certain to continue. They include fights over DOGE access to Americans' personal information, whether the office is subject to public records laws and its role in canceling federal grants and contracts, dismantling agencies and firing workers. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields declined to comment on the administration's next steps in court but said government lawyers 'will continue to fight every single frivolous lawsuit that is brought our way.' A Justice Department spokesperson and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department has represented Musk and DOGE in court and would be expected to continue defending against allegations related to government work. Musk recently had criticized Trump's tax cut proposal but he and Trump praised each other during Friday's press event in the Oval Office. He also slammed the wave of court rulings against the administration, saying that 'immense judicial overreach' is 'undermining the people's faith in the legal system.' Some legal experts say Musk's formal exit could give the Justice Department grounds to argue for dismissal. Jeff Powell, a constitutional law professor at Duke University School of Law, said claims over the legality of Musk's position under the Constitution's Appointments Clause would no longer be valid once he's left government service. Powell called the claims 'meritless' to the extent the challengers want to hold Musk or DOGE responsible for communicating Trump's 'will' to Senate-confirmed officials who carried out the actions. 'Musk was a minion,' Powell said. 'The lawsuits may have other things, they may challenge the substantive validity of the reduction of force or cancellation of contracts, but that had nothing to do with Musk.' Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Action and a lead attorney in another case challenging Musk's appointment, cited the billionaire's comments that he would stay involved with the administration for the rest of Trump's term as a reason why it was 'very important' that he remain a party in court. 'You do have to take account of his prior statements that he's gonna keep a hand in — to my mind, that's an unconstitutional hand,' Eisen said. 'Principal Officer' Courts can dismiss cases if circumstances change. When Trump lost the 2020 election and left office in January 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed long-running fights over whether Trump's business interests violated anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution. Musk joined the administration as a 'special government employee,' a temporary status set to expire this month. Legal challenges citing the Appointments Clause allege that Musk was functioning as a 'principal officer' similar to Senate-confirmed agency heads who only answer to the president. Each of the lawsuits include other claims and defendants. A Washington federal judge this week denied the government's request to dismiss the states' case over Musk's appointment. US District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote that there might be a viable Appointments Clause claim against whomever Trump put in charge of the DOGE effort, given the allegations that the position had evolved to influence multiple agencies. Brent Ferguson of the Campaign Legal Center, which brought a third constitutional challenge to Musk's authority in the administration that's also before Chutkan, said they were 'full steam ahead.' He said they wouldn't take Musk and White House officials at their word that he's no longer part of DOGE's work and demand evidence that proves his status. 'Regardless of the title that he's given by the government or what they say his role is, the real question for the Appointments Clause is, what actual power does he have,' Ferguson said. Dozens more lawsuits have been filed that relate to DOGE's activities. Judges have handed down a mix of rulings, in some cases greenlighting DOGE-affiliated staff's access to agency records and allowing cuts to federal spending and the workforce. In other cases, they've restricted DOGE from seeing Americans' information, revived spending and put fired federal personnel back on the job. Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a group involved in a number of lawsuits against the administration, said in a statement that they would continue to challenge the legality of what Musk accomplished. 'While he may have left Washington, the havoc he has created has not,' she said. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
