Braidwood Management, Inc. et al. v. Becerra et al.

Why this Matters:

The plaintiffs argue that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the Appointments Clause and the nondelegation doctrine. The preventive services requirement is a popular provision of the law that has been in effect since 2010 and extends coverage of evidence-based preventive services (such as cancer screening, tobacco cessation, contraception, and immunizations), without cost-sharing, to more than 150 million people each year. That guaranteed benefit could go away if the courts agree with the plaintiffs. On appeal, the government seeks a ruling establishing that the preventive services requirement is lawful, and that the decisions are not a violation of Article II of the Constitution.

Potential Impact:

Striking down the requirement for insurers and employers to cover preventive services without cost-sharing would jeopardize access to needed services for consumers.