Simple Smart Seminar
  • Stock
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Tech News
  • Editor’s Pick
Editor's PickInvesting

Officers Who Make Final Decisions for the Government Must Receive Senate Confirmation

by April 18, 2025
April 18, 2025 0 comment

Thomas A. Berry and Charles Brandt

constitution

Braidwood Management is a small business that offers a self-insured health plan to around 70 employees. But under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Braidwood is forced to cover “preventive services” that are mandated by the US Preventive Services Task Force (the Task Force), no matter how onerous. Braidwood says this is unconstitutional.

The Task Force is a bureaucratic entity run by expert doctors who were originally appointed by an official ranking below the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS recently purported to change the rules so that Task Force members are now appointed by the HHS secretary. Either way, the ACA empowers the Task Force to issue rules that compel employers to cover various “preventive services” without patient “cost-sharing,” i.e., without copays. Once the Task Force makes a coverage “recommendation,” that determination is, for all practical purposes, binding on private insurers. While the HHS Secretary may delay the date of any such rule taking effect for up to one year, neither he nor the president may review or modify the Task Force’s mandates. What the Task Force says, goes.

Braidwood sued the government, challenging this scheme as unconstitutional. Among other things, Braidwood argued that the Task Force violates Article II’s Appointments Clause because its members are “principal officers” who have not been validly appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The district court largely agreed with Braidwood, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Now the case is at the Supreme Court.

Cato has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit. In our brief, we advance two main arguments for why the Task Force, in its current configuration, violates the Appointments Clause.

First, Task Force members are principal officers of the United States who must be appointed by the president with Senate consent. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex (2021), an officer is “principal” (as opposed to inferior) when that officer is empowered to make final, unreviewable decisions binding on private citizens. Because Task Force recommendations are binding on private insurers and unreviewable by a higher-ranking executive officer answerable to the president, Task Force members are principal officers whose present mode of appointment by the HHS Secretary is unlawful.

Second, even if Task Force members are inferior officers, their appointment nonetheless violates the Appointments Clause. The Constitution only allows “inferior officers” to be exempted from Senate confirmation if Congress explicitly makes that choice “by Law.” But the scheme for appointing Task Force members is set out by administrative regulation, not by statute. That means Congress never decided to vest such appointment “by Law” in the HHS Secretary. And in the absence of such a congressional choice, even “inferior” officers must be confirmed by the Senate. The appointment of Task Force members thus violates the Appointments Clause, regardless of whether they are inferior or principal officers of the United States.

The Supreme Court should affirm the Fifth Circuit and declare that members of the Task Force must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

supreme court

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
previous post
Biden’s vax-focused COVID-19 website obliterated by White House, replaced with ‘true origins’ virus guide
next post
‘Light on the truth’: Gabbard announces RFK files released months after Trump’s order

You may also like

S&P 500 on the Verge of 6,000: What’s...

June 4, 2025

Why ADX Can Mislead You — And How...

June 4, 2025

Strategic Chaos or Tactical Goldmine? What QQQ’s Chart...

June 4, 2025

Meet the New Steel Tariffs, Same as the...

June 4, 2025

From Nutrition to Nannying: Texas SB 25 and...

June 4, 2025

S&P 500 Bullish Patterns: Are Higher Highs Ahead?

June 3, 2025

Local Government Corruption: 15 Case Studies

June 3, 2025

How I Find Up-trending Stocks Every Week (Step-by-Step...

June 3, 2025

The FTC Event that Wasn’t: The Attention Economy...

June 3, 2025

Grace-Marie Turner, RIP

June 3, 2025

    Fill Out & Get More Relevant News


    Stay ahead of the market and unlock exclusive trading insights & timely news. We value your privacy - your information is secure, and you can unsubscribe anytime. Gain an edge with hand-picked trading opportunities, stay informed with market-moving updates, and learn from expert tips & strategies.

    Recent Posts

    • S&P 500 on the Verge of 6,000: What’s at Stake?

      June 4, 2025
    • Why ADX Can Mislead You — And How to Avoid It

      June 4, 2025
    • Strategic Chaos or Tactical Goldmine? What QQQ’s Chart is Whispering Right Now

      June 4, 2025
    • S&P 500 Bullish Patterns: Are Higher Highs Ahead?

      June 3, 2025
    • How I Find Up-trending Stocks Every Week (Step-by-Step Scan Tutorial)

      June 3, 2025
    • Hedge Market Volatility with These Dividend Aristocrats & Sector Leaders

      June 2, 2025
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 simplesmartseminar.com | All Rights Reserved

    Simple Smart Seminar
    • Stock
    • Investing
    • Politics
    • Tech News
    • Editor’s Pick