Supreme Court Decides Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.

On June 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., No. 24-316, holding that because members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are removable at will and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary of HHS before they take effect, Task Force members are inferior officers; therefore, appointment of Task Force members by the Secretary of HHS is consistent with the Appointments Clause.

In 1984, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) established the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to develop evidence-based recommendations for preventive healthcare services. Congress formally recognized the Task Force in 1999, placing it under the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) within HHS. Comprising 16 volunteer members appointed by the HHS Secretary for staggered four-year terms, the Task Force initially provided advisory recommendations. However, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 elevated its role by mandating that most health insurers and group health plans cover preventive services rated “A” or “B” by the Task Force without cost-sharing. The Act also amended the governing statute to describe the Task Force as “independent” and to provide that members and their recommendations “shall be independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 299b-4(a)(1), (6).

Plaintiffs, individuals and small businesses who object to the Affordable Care Act’s preventive-services coverage requirements sued in federal court. Plaintiffs argued that Task Force members are principal officers under the Appointments Clause who must be appointed by the President “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, not by the Secretary. The District Court agreed, recognizing that Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary but concluding they are principal officers because they “have no superior” who supervises and directs them. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Task Force members are not inferior officers because they cannot be “ ‘independent’ ” and “free from ‘political pressure’ ” while simultaneously being supervised by a political appointee.

The Supreme Court reversed. The Court explained that the Appointments Clause specifies how “Officers of the United States” must be appointed, dividing all officers into two classes. Principal officers must be appointed by the President “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Inferior officers likewise may be appointed by Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, but Congress may also “by Law vest” their appointment “in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. Principal officers encompass at least department heads who report directly to the President. Inferior officers are those “whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The Court held that under its precedents, Task Force members are inferior officers because their work is “directed and supervised” by the Secretary of HHS, a principal officer, through two main sources of authority: (1) the Secretary’s authority to remove Task Force members at will, and (2) the Secretary’s ability to directly review and block Task Force recommendations before they take effect.

The Court rejected Braidwood’s arguments that Task Force members are not inferior officers. First, it held that the independence provision in the statute does not provide for-cause removal protection, as Congress must clearly state such protections to override the default at-will removal rule. Second, the Court interpreted the term “independent” to mean avoiding undue influence from external affiliations, not complete insulation from the Secretary of HHS. Finally, the Court found that the Secretary’s inability to compel specific recommendations does not disqualify Task Force members as inferior officers, noting nothing in its prior rulings suggests that a principal officer must be able to compel a subordinate to take an affirmative act affecting private parties in order for the subordinate to qualify as an inferior officer.

Finally, the Court held that Congress vested the authority to appoint Task Force members in the Secretary of HHS through a two-step process. First, the Court interpreted the 1999 statute governing the Task Force, which allows the AHRQ Director to “convene” a Task Force of experts, as implicitly granting the authority to appoint its members. Second, the court pointed to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, ratified by Congress in 1984, which transferred all functions of the Public Health Service — including those of its officers, like the AHRQ Director — to the Secretary of HHS. This transfer included the Director’s appointment authority. The Court thus concluded that, together, those legislative actions vested the power to appoint Task Force members in the Secretary of HHS.

Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson joined.

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined.