Fact Check: Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling favors ACA despite conservative dissent
What We Know
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that upheld a significant provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), specifically regarding preventive health care coverage. This ruling came in response to a challenge from Christian employers who argued that the process by which the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) determines which health services must be covered by insurance was unconstitutional. The majority opinion was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who stated that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has the authority to appoint task force members, which does not require Senate approval (Reuters, AP News).
The ruling is significant as it ensures that approximately 150 million Americans will continue to receive various preventive services at no cost, including critical medications and screenings for conditions like HIV and cancer (NPR). The dissenting opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, who argued that the task force's appointment process violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (AP News).
Analysis
The ruling's implications are profound, as it preserves access to essential health services for millions of Americans. The majority opinion emphasized that the task force operates under the supervision of the HHS Secretary, who can remove members at will, thus maintaining a level of accountability (NPR). This interpretation aligns with a broader understanding of the roles of various governmental bodies and their appointed officials.
Critics of the ruling, particularly those in the dissent, raised concerns about the lack of Senate confirmation for task force members, arguing that this undermines democratic accountability (AP News). However, the majority opinion countered that the task force members are not "principal officers" requiring such confirmation, but rather "inferior officers" whose appointment can be delegated by Congress to department heads (NPR).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, with Reuters and the Associated Press being well-respected news organizations known for their journalistic standards. NPR is also a reputable source, providing in-depth analysis and coverage of legal matters. The dissenting opinions, while coming from justices of the Supreme Court, reflect a specific ideological stance that may not represent the broader legal consensus.
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling favors the ACA despite conservative dissent is True. The ruling not only upheld a key provision of the ACA but also ensured continued access to preventive health services for millions. The majority opinion articulated a clear rationale for the decision, emphasizing the role of the HHS Secretary in overseeing the task force, which counters the dissent's arguments about constitutional violations.
