The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review a crucial component of the Affordable Care Act, potentially impacting healthcare coverage for millions of Americans.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court to review Affordable Care Act’s preventive healthcare services mandate
- Case stems from Braidwood Management’s religious objections to certain mandated services
- Fifth Circuit Court ruled mandates invalid due to Appointments Clause violation
- Decision could significantly alter existing healthcare service measures
- Federal government argues ruling threatens healthcare protections for millions
Supreme Court Takes on Obamacare Mandate
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of a key provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare. The case, Becerra v. Braidwood Management Inc., centers on a mandate requiring insurers to cover preventive medical services at no cost to patients. This development marks another chapter in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the ACA since its inception.
The heart of the dispute lies with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a panel within the Department of Health and Human Services. This task force is responsible for recommending which preventive services should be covered under the mandate. However, the appointment process for task force members has come under scrutiny, leading to the current legal challenge.
SCOTUS will rule on ACA preventive care mandate 23 million Americans rely on free preventive services like was unconstitutional, colon & breast cancer screenings.

At stake is nothing less than public health. Absent screenings, many will die needlessly— Lawrence Gostin (@LawrenceGostin) January 11, 2025
Religious Objections and Constitutional Concerns
Braidwood Management, a Texas-based company, initiated the lawsuit on religious grounds. The company objected to mandates requiring coverage for services such as HIV prevention and sexually transmitted disease screenings. This case highlights the tension between religious liberty and public health policy that has characterized many debates surrounding the ACA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Braidwood Management, ruling that the mandates were invalid. The court’s decision hinged on the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which requires principal officers to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Task force members, however, did not undergo this process.
The federal government has expressed serious concerns about the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, arguing that it poses a significant threat to healthcare protections for millions of Americans. If upheld, the decision could potentially unravel a critical aspect of the ACA’s preventive care provisions, which have become a cornerstone of many insurance plans.
On the other hand, Braidwood Management supports the Supreme Court’s review, emphasizing the importance of the statute in question. The company’s stance reflects a broader debate about the balance between government mandates and individual or corporate rights in the healthcare sector.
Looking Ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, stakeholders on all sides are keenly aware of its potential ramifications. A decision could have far-reaching effects on the structure of health insurance coverage in the United States, particularly regarding preventive care. The case has not yet been scheduled for oral argument, leaving time for further debate and speculation about its outcome.
The Epoch Times reported that they reached out to Braidwood Management’s attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice for comments, but received no responses by the time of publication. As the legal proceedings unfold, many Americans will be watching closely to see how this latest challenge to the ACA might reshape their healthcare landscape.
