Latest news with #Kavanaugh
Time of India
21 hours ago
- Health
- Time of India
US Supreme Court preserves key element of Obamacare preventive care
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday preserved a key element of the Obamacare law that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings and HIV prevention medication at no cost to patients. The 6-3 decision written by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law formally called the Affordable Care Act has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, was not validly appointed. The ruling means that certain life-saving tests and treatments must continue to be provided cost-free under most insurance plans. That allays concerns raised by public health advocates that the court might open the door to insurers subjecting these services to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo The task force's 16 members are selected by the U.S. secretary of health and human services without Senate confirmation. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had found that this arrangement violated the U.S. Constitution's provision on the appointment of governmental officers. The case arose when several individual Christian plaintiffs and two small businesses sued in federal court in Texas in 2020 to challenge the task force's structure. It was the latest in a years-long series of challenges to Democratic former President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement to reach the Supreme Court. Live Events A key question in the case was whether the task force wields power to such an extent that its members, under the Constitution's "appointments clause," are "principal officers" who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate or "inferior officers" not subject to these requirements. Kavanaugh wrote that because task force members are adequately supervised by the U.S. secretary of health and human services, members are "inferior officers" and do not need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. "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," Kavanaugh wrote. "So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President, preserving the chain of command," wrote Kavanaugh, who was joined by fellow conservative Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as the court's three liberal members. Three conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - dissented. Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs had included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use." The U.S. government's appeal of the decision by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially was filed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration before being taken up by Republican President Donald Trump's administration. The task force is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient's condition worsens. The task force has identified dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the task force's structure violates the Constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The justices during April 21 arguments in the case posed questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the task force, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if it operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law. The Justice Department urged the justices to view the task force's members as "inferior officers." Hashim Mooppan, a Justice Department lawyer, told the justices that the HHS secretary can remove task force members at will, review their recommendations and prevent them from taking effect, and can require the task force to obtain his approval before it issues any recommendations. The plaintiffs contended that the task force's lack of supervision and insulation from removal makes its members "principal officers."
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court is reining in lower-court overreach on the environment
On May 29, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County curbed lower courts' ability to micromanage federal agencies' environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. This landmark ruling frees agencies from decades of defensive, litigation-averse mindsets, boosting prospects for projects critical to addressing urgent economic and environmental challenges. The case centered on a proposed Utah railroad to connect the Uinta Basin's growing oil (and potentially mineral) production to the national rail network. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Surface Transportation Board had produced a 3,600-page environmental impact statement that thoroughly analyzed alternative options, mitigation strategies and public input. It then concluded that the project's benefits outweighed its environmental costs and issued an approval. Environmental groups and a Colorado county promptly challenged the decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the Surface Transportation Board failed to adequately assess several environmental impacts, including those related to downstream oil refining and upstream drilling. The D.C. Circuit sided with several claims and vacated the approval. The Supreme Court, which hadn't addressed a National Environmental Policy Act case since 2004, saw a need for course correction. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh's incisive opinion noted, 'A 1970 legislative acorn has grown into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act to balance resource use, high living standards and a healthy environment, not to stifle progress. Yet, activist groups have weaponized it as a 'blunt and haphazard tool' to push unpopular policy agendas through litigation, undermining the law's effectiveness and skirting the democratic process. Kavanaugh's opinion clarified two key points. First, the National Environmental Policy Act is a 'procedural cross-check' in which agencies have substantial deference in how they evaluate environmental impacts. The judiciary's sole role is to confirm that agencies address environmental impacts and feasible alternatives, not to police their methods or paralyze projects. Second, agencies need not assess the environmental effects of separate projects, though they remain accountable for directly connected impacts — for example, of how runoff in a project might affect a fish population miles downstream. These clarifications are transformative. By rebuking dubious precedents set by lower courts, the Supreme Court has set agency reviewers free from an impossible situation wherein, as the Property and Environment Research Center noted, 'NEPA obligations could balloon as widely as the most creative plaintiff demands.' No longer sitting ducks for deep-pocketed green litigators, agencies can now move beyond 'litigation-proofing' their reviews. The days of an environmental impact statement averaging 4.5 years and 669 pages, with appendices topping 1,037 pages, should be over. Taxpayers will save money, large projects will become more viable and whole industries (e.g. mining) will come back to life. The only losers here are groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians, for whom grinding National Environmental Policy Act litigation was a cash cow. Although oil was the subject of this specific case, all forms of energy will benefit. As Kavanaugh pointed out, environmental groups have used this statute to 'fight even clean-energy projects — from wind farms to hydroelectric dams, from solar farms to geothermal wells.' The nuclear industry was arguably the highest-profile victim of the National Environmental Policy Act weaponization. The first major case, a 1971 D.C. Circuit challenge to a reactor's environmental impact study, resulted in an 18-month nationwide moratorium on reactor construction. This was the first devastating blow to the nuclear industry, which crumbled over the next decade and is still struggling to recover. This decision will also boost our country's capacity to mitigate the wildfire crisis. Forest management projects are the most common subject of National Environmental Policy Act litigation, according to a Breakthrough Institute study. The Property and Environment Research Center found that prescribed burns requiring an environmental impact study take an average of 7.2 years to implement. Ironically, despite their apparent concern about trains sparking wildfires in the Uinta Basin, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians all have extensive track records of obstructing mitigation projects in forests that eventually fall victim to extreme wildfires. For example, the Center for Biological Diversity delayed a U.S. Forest Service forest thinning project that, if completed on schedule, could have saved the California town of Grizzly Flats, which was mostly decimated by the Caldor Fire in 2021. By removing this poison from the regulatory well, the Supreme Court has begun to clear the path to tackling our most pressing energy and environmental challenges. But the court can only do so much. The core of the National Environmental Policy Act's legislative text is still largely the same as it was in 1970. Congress needs to resolve its vulnerabilities as part of a comprehensive permitting reform, and codifying durable limits to judicial review should be a top priority. Fortunately, the Supreme Court just delivered a clear signal that it is time to act. Patrick Hynes is a fellow with ConservAmerica.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine Dems launch website targeting Collins over abortion ahead of Dobbs anniversary
The Maine Democratic Party has launched a website targeting Republican Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) for votes she they say have caused a significant rollback in abortion rights. The release of the website, shared exclusively with The Hill, comes ahead of the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned its longstanding precedent of Roe v. Wade. The ruling allowed states to make their own decisions on abortion access and has led to more than a dozen states moving to restrict access to the procedure. A video released along with the website blames Collins for her votes to confirm Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who were part of the five-justice majority that overturned Roe. The video starts and ends with a recording of Collins announcing on the Senate floor that she would vote to confirm Kavanaugh. 'The overturning of Roe vs Wade falls squarely on Susan Collins' shoulders. Mainers recognize and remember how Collins' 'no regrets' decisive vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court — despite clear warnings of the threat he posed to Roe — led to bans on reproductive freedom nationwide, and it will cost her in 2026 when voters reject her,' said state Democratic Party spokesperson Tommy Garcia. Collins's vote on Kavanaugh in particular received significant attention as his nomination was ultimately approved in a 50-48 vote. In her message announcing her decision to vote for Kavanaugh, she expressed her belief that he wouldn't be likely to vote in favor of overturning Roe. After the court overturned Roe, Collins said the decision was 'inconsistent' with what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said during their testimonies and in their meetings wither her. 'It's deja vu all over again—these are the same tired, rehashed attacks voters already rejected in 2020 when they re-elected Senator Collins by 9 points. Mainers didn't buy it then, and they won't buy it now,' said Collins campaign spokesperson Shawn Roderick in a statement. 'While these groups plan to spend the next eighteen months litigating the 2020 election and launching false attacks, Senator Collins continues to show up and work hard for the people of Maine. The contrast could not be more clear.' The website also notes Collins's vote against advancing the Women's Health Protection Act, which would have codified Roe into law, in 2022. The Maine Republican argued at the time that the legislation would have violated the rights of individuals and organizations who have religious objections to performing abortions and exceeded what Roe protected, striking down laws prohibiting sex-based abortions and requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortions. Collins instead pointed to the legislation she introduced, called the Reproductive Choice Act, which would restore the rights of Roe. The website also attacks Collins over votes she's taken in favor of federal judges who ultimately upheld abortion restrictions in certain states, including Stuart Kyle Duncan in Texas and Kenneth Lee from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Collins will be a top target for Democrats seeking to make gains in the Senate in 2026 after losing a few seats last year, falling to a 53-47 minority. The longtime senator, representing a state that voted for former Vice President Harris in 2024, has long been a target and was viewed as particularly vulnerable in 2020 but has repeatedly held on. She won her last election by more than 8 points. Still, this would be the first time Collins is seeking reelection following the court's overturning of Roe, giving Democrats hope that abortion rights can be a rallying point as it was in the 2022 midterms. A high-profile Democrat has yet to enter the race, but some in the state believe Gov. Janet Mills (D) may be the strongest choice if she decides to run. This story was updated at 12:50 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
20-06-2025
- Automotive
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling could bring fresh risks to California EV rules
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that fuel producers have standing to challenge EPA approval of California vehicle emissions and electric vehicle policies. Why it matters: The 7-2 decision enables more lines of attack against California officials, who are already battling GOP and Trump 2.0 efforts to thwart rules that go beyond federal standards. Disputes over California's vehicle rules are a big deal, especially as the state defends separate rules — not directly at stake here — to phase out sales of gas-powered cars by 2035. It's the country's largest auto market and other states, under the Clean Air Act, have discretion to follow its policies. Driving the news: The ruling, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, overturns an appellate decision on standing, siding with fuel producers who say they're harmed by the "clean car" rules. But it doesn't address the merits of the EPA Clean Air Act waiver issued in 2022 that reinstated rules first issued in 2012. (The ruling notes that President Obama's EPA had approved a waiver that was rescinded under Trump in 2019.) The rules address tailpipe emissions, and automakers' EV manufacturing shares through model year 2025. State of play: California had successfully challenged gasoline and ethanol producers' standing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit, but Kavanaugh harshly criticized California's reasoning. "The regulations likely cause the fuel producers' monetary injuries because reducing gasoline and diesel fuel consumption is the whole point of the regulations," he wrote for the majority. "The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders," Kavanaugh wrote. The other side: The Environmental Defense Fund, which supports California's rules, emphasized that today's high court decision is narrow. "While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself," EDF general counsel Vickie Patton said in a statement. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement that he's disappointed with today's ruling, but added: "[W]e will continue to vigorously defend California's authority under the Clean Air Act." The intrigue: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent, said she feared the decision would further fuel perceptions that the court is overly sympathetic to corporate interests. "For one thing, it could have denied certiorari, recognizing that one of the core components of California's emissions program—the electric-vehicle mandate—is about to sunset," she wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a separate dissent. What we're watching: How and whether it influences disputes over EPA's 2024 blessing of California's separate rules to end gas-powered car sales in 10 years.
The Hill
20-06-2025
- Automotive
- The Hill
Supreme Court revives industry effort to axe California clean car standards
The Supreme Court revived an industry effort to axe California's stricter vehicle emissions standards on Friday. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled fuel producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), allowing the challenge to continue. 'This case concerns only standing, not the merits,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident.' Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, dissented. The Clean Air Act generally preempts state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California — and only California. The EPA granted such a waiver in 2013, only for the Trump administration to partially withdraw it after taking office. Once former President Biden arrived at the White House, his EPA reinstated the waiver, putting the stricter emissions standards back in play. A group of producers of gasoline and other liquid fuels sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars, which would cause a hit to the fuel producers' sales. But the EPA and California argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires a showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA contended that consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate, anyway, so the regulations no longer have impact. The Supreme Court's decision rejects that notion, reversing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that tossed the lawsuit. 'If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell,' he added. In separate dissents, Sotomayor and Jackson said they would've sided with the EPA and California and noted the case may become moot. 'I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,' Sotomayor wrote, saying she would've sent the case back to the lower court for another look. In her separate dissent, Jackson was more forceful, saying her colleagues weren't applying the courts' standing doctrine evenhandedly, warning it may contribute to an erosion of public trust in judges. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,' Jackson wrote.
