10
Loading video...
By Jesus Mesa
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A sharp exchange during U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments Monday on the future of no-cost preventive care under the Affordable Care Act took a humorous turn when Justice Samuel Alito made a self-deprecating joke about one of his past opinions, drawing laughter from the courtroom.
Why It Matters
The case, Kennedy v. Braidwood, was brought by conservative Christian employers in Texas. It challenges the legal authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, arguing that its members are unconstitutionally appointed.
Read More on News
The task force's recommendations help determine which services insurers must cover at no cost—including cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering statins and HIV prevention drugs like PrEP.
...
What To Know
During Supreme Court arguments on Monday in a case that could reshape preventive care under the Affordable Care Act—popularly known as Obamacare—Alito brought an unexpected moment of laughter.
As Solicitor General Andrew Ferguson defended the task force's independence, Alito pushed back.
"If somebody is removable at will, that person is not in any ordinary sense of the term independent," Alito said.
Ferguson countered by citing a prior ruling: "With all due respect, Your Honor, in Your Honor's opinion for the Court in Collins, this Court held that there are many statutes that use the phrase 'independent' to describe [an] entity that is nevertheless not subject to a removal restriction."
Alito paused, then responded with a jab at himself:
"All right, well maybe that's a little bit unfair, but—I mean—maybe I was wrong in Collins. But explain to me how somebody can be independent and yet subject to removal on the whim of the president."
The comment—"maybe I was wrong in Collins"—sparked audible laughter in the chamber.
Alito's reference was to Collins v. Yellen (2021), a case in which he wrote the majority opinion. That decision upheld the president's authority to fire the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency without cause, reinforcing executive control over agencies typically considered independent.
Returning to the matter at hand, Alito challenged the idea that the task force's recommendations can carry binding force despite its members' removability.
"Let's say they are removable at will, OK? And 'independent' means something—it's like a preparatory directive. Still, if the task force rates something A or B, then that's it. And the only way to get around that is through some really jerry-built arguments," he said.
What People Are Saying
The Trump administration, in a court filing, said task force members: "are inferior officers because the Secretary of HHS—a quintessential principal officer—remains responsible for final decisions about whether Task Force recommendations will be legally binding on insurance issuers and group health plans."
Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, told NBC News: "This is a really crucial case. The price will be paid in dead bodies if the court rules against it."
What Happens Next
The court is expected to issue its ruling by June. The decision could impact access to no-cost preventive services—including cancer screenings, statins and HIV prevention drugs like PrEP—for more than 150 million Americans.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines