Fact Check: "6-3 ruling affirms government's power over preventive care appointments."
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling affirming the government's authority over preventive care appointments as outlined in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This decision allows the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to continue determining which preventive services must be provided at no cost to patients under health insurance policies. The ruling ensures that approximately 150 million Americans will maintain access to free preventive services, including cancer screenings, diabetes care, and medications for heart disease and HIV prevention, among others (NPR, New York Times).
The case arose from a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the appointment process for the USPSTF members, which had been deemed unconstitutional by two lower courts. However, the Supreme Court found that the task force members are "inferior officers" who can be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), rather than requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation (Washington Post, Reuters).
Analysis
The Supreme Court's decision was primarily based on the interpretation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, argued that the task force operates under the supervision of the HHS Secretary, who is accountable to the President. This structure preserves the necessary chain of command outlined in Article II of the Constitution, allowing the Secretary to appoint task force members (NPR, New York Times).
Critics of the ruling, including dissenting justices, raised concerns about the implications of allowing such appointments without direct presidential oversight. They argued that this could undermine the independence of the task force and its recommendations (New York Times, Washington Post). However, the majority opinion emphasized that the Secretary retains the authority to review and block the task force's recommendations, ensuring a level of accountability (Reuters).
The sources used in this analysis are credible and come from established news organizations with a history of reporting on legal and health policy matters. NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Reuters are all reputable outlets known for their journalistic integrity, which adds weight to the information presented (NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters).
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling affirms the government's power over preventive care appointments is True. The ruling not only upheld the ACA's preventive care provisions but also clarified the constitutional basis for the appointment of task force members, thereby ensuring continued access to essential health services for millions of Americans.
