A recent ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has brought to light concerns regarding the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in issuing preventive care mandates for insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act. The court found that the task force had “unreviewable power” that violated the Constitution, specifically the appointments clause in Article II.
According to Justice Don R. Willett, who wrote the opinion for the 5th Circuit panel, members of the task force should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, as they are considered principal officers under Article II of the Constitution. This lack of proper nomination and confirmation process raised constitutional issues that could not be rectified by the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra.
The ruling was prompted by a challenge from four individuals and two Christian-owned businesses who objected to a task force mandate for HIV prevention drugs on religious grounds. While the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs’ appointments clause argument, it did not support a nationwide injunction that had been issued by a U.S. District Judge in Texas.
The court emphasized that relief should be tailored to address the specific injuries of the plaintiffs and should not extend to a nationwide scale unless absolutely necessary. The decision highlighted the skepticism of several U.S. Supreme Court justices towards universal injunctions, citing concerns about overreach and lack of justification.
Moving forward, the appeals court left open the question of whether Becerra had effectively ratified the recommendations of other administrative bodies involved in issuing preventive care guidelines. This issue, along with others, will need to be further considered by the lower court.
It is important to note that the panel of judges involved in this ruling had a mixed political background, with two being appointees of former President Donald Trump and one being an appointee of President Joe Biden. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by America First Legal, a conservative legal group, and their co-counsel.
Overall, this decision has sparked discussions about the balance of power and authority in health care policy-making and the role of appointed officials in such processes. It serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional principles and ensuring transparency and accountability in government actions.
