Category

Category: Politics

Politics

Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/XHmJPBxQh9CsE-A7IWgU_Hn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion" title="Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Banner141203-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion" title="Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fmontana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion%2F&linkname=Montana%20asks%20justices%20to%20revive%20parental-consent%20law%20for%20minors%20to%20get%20an%20abortion" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fmontana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion%2F&linkname=Montana%20asks%20justices%20to%20revive%20parental-consent%20law%20for%20minors%20to%20get%20an%20abortion" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fmontana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion%2F&linkname=Montana%20asks%20justices%20to%20revive%20parental-consent%20law%20for%20minors%20to%20get%20an%20abortion" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fmontana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion%2F&linkname=Montana%20asks%20justices%20to%20revive%20parental-consent%20law%20for%20minors%20to%20get%20an%20abortion" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fmontana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion%2F&linkname=Montana%20asks%20justices%20to%20revive%20parental-consent%20law%20for%20minors%20to%20get%20an%20abortion" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fmontana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion%2F&title=Montana%20asks%20justices%20to%20revive%20parental-consent%20law%20for%20minors%20to%20get%20an%20abortion" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/montana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion/" data-a2a-title="Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion">Share</a></p><p><em>The Petitions of the Week column highlights some of the </em><a href="about:blank#cert_petitions_explained"><em>cert petitions</em></a><em> recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available </em><a href="about:blank"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p>Since the Supreme Court overruled a federal constitutional right to abortion in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/"><em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</em></a>, the fight over reproductive rights has shifted to state courts. This week, we highlight petitions asking the court to consider, among other things, whether to overturn a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a state law requiring minors under the age of 18 to get consent from their parents before obtaining an abortion.</p> <p>As far as states go, Montana is <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/">on the protective side</a> of reproductive rights. The state’s supreme court <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/d94d06f5-3a93-4aa5-babb-fb5f9dcc3098.html">ruled over 25 years ago</a> that the right to privacy in its constitution protects a right to abortion. And in the 2024 elections, Montana voters <a href="https://montanafreepress.org/2024/11/06/montanas-abortion-rights-measure-surges-to-victory/">passed a constitutional amendment</a> specifically enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution — and thus protecting abortion against a possible overruling of the state supreme court’s privacy decision.<span id="more-319845"></span></p> <p>Children under 16 in Montana who seek an abortion, however, are required to notify their parents or legal guardian 48 hours before the procedure, unless they can obtain permission from a judge to bypass that requirement.</p> <p>In 2013, the Montana legislature tried to expand abortion restrictions for minors. It enacted a <a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/text/HB521/id/826456">law requiring teenagers under 18 to get consent from a parent or guardian</a>, not merely to give them notice, before they can get an abortion. Like the existing parental-notice rule, the new parental-consent law also contained a so-called “judicial bypass” provision, allowing minors to ask a judge to green-light an abortion without their parents’ consent in cases of abuse, or when getting that consent would not otherwise be in the child’s “best interests.”</p> <p>The parental-consent law never went into effect. Planned Parenthood immediately went to state trial court to challenge the law. Perhaps in part because the parental-notice rule remained on the books, Montana agreed to an order — known as a preliminary injunction — to put the new parental-consent law on hold while the litigation continued.</p> <p>Procedural hurdles then stalled the litigation for nearly a decade. Eventually, <em>Dobbs</em> breathed new life into the dispute. After the landmark 2022 ruling, Montana cited the decision to bolster its argument in favor of dissolving the preliminary injunction.</p> <p>In addition, Montana argued that the parental-consent law is necessary to protect the rights of parents. Under the federal Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children. Urging that parents’ federal rights trump minors’ state right to an abortion, Montana insisted that refusing to lift the preliminary injunction against the parental-consent law would violate the federal Constitution.</p> <p>The state trial court ultimately ruled for Planned Parenthood and struck down the law — this time permanently.</p> <p>Last August, the Montana Supreme Court upheld that ruling. The Montana constitution includes a provision that gives minors under 18 the same fundamental rights as adults throughout the state, “unless specifically precluded by laws which enhance the protection of” minors. The state high court acknowledged that parental consent protects a the rights of parents to direct health care for their children. But this is limited to “a right to parent free from state interference,” the court reasoned, not “to make it more difficult for a minor to exercise their fundamental rights.” And requiring parental consent for minors under 18 to get an abortion — while it might protect parents — would not “enhance the protection of” minors, the court concluded.</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/montana-v-planned-parenthood-of-montana/"><em>Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana</em></a>, the state asks the justices to grant review and reverse the Montana Supreme Court. Whatever the Montana constitution may protect — including, since November 2024, an explicit right to abortion — the state argues that parents’ rights under the federal Constitution to make medical decisions for their children reign supreme. Montana contends that lower courts are divided over the extent to which parents have “the right to know and participate in their minor child’s major healthcare decisions.”</p> <p>Lurking in the background of the state’s argument are a host of other issues. In the coming weeks, the court is poised to issue a major ruling in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/"><em>United States v. Skrmetti</em></a> on whether states can ban gender-affirming care for transgender teens. When the justices agreed to hear the case, they declined to take up the related question whether such bans violate parents’ rights to decide whether their children should receive such care.</p> <p>Nonetheless, the court will issue a decision on the extent of parents’ rights to control what their children learn about sexuality and gender expression in another major case this term. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/"><em>Mahmoud v. Taylor</em></a>, the justices agreed to decide whether public schools violate parents’ religious rights when they refuse to give the parents the option to excuse their children from instruction using books supportive of the LGBTQ+ community.</p> <p>A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/t-w-v-new-york-state-board-of-law-examiners/"><em>T.W. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners</em></a><br /> 24-714<br /> <strong>Issue: </strong>Whether a plaintiff who suffers ongoing harm caused by a state official’s prior unlawful conduct is subject to an “ongoing violation” of federal law and so able to seek an injunction under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/"><em>Ex parte Young</em></a>, or that decision’s ongoing-violation requirement instead demands that a plaintiff show that the state official’s continuing actions are independently unlawful.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/warner-v-hillsborough-county-school-board/"><em>Warner v. Hillsborough County School Board</em></a><br /> 24-718<br /> <strong>Issue: </strong>Whether, under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1654">28 U.S.C. § 1654</a>, children must hire an attorney to pursue their claims in federal court, or instead their parents may litigate pro se on their behalf.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/the-hain-celestial-group-inc-v-palmquist/"><em>The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist</em></a><br /> 24-724<br /> <strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal; and (2) whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a non-diverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/iowa-pork-producers-association-v-bonta/"><em>Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta</em></a><br /> 24-728<br /> <strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12 — which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country — discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/137/"><em>Pike v. Bruce Church</em></a>, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from this court consider all justices’ opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/montana-v-planned-parenthood-of-montana/"><em>Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana</em></a><br /> 24-745<br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and custody of his or her children includes a right to know and participate in decisions concerning their minor child’s medical care, including a minor’s decision to seek an abortion.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/coria-v-bondi/"><em>Coria v. Bondi</em></a><br /> 24-753<br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1252">Immigration and Nationality Act</a>, which states that that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed [specified] criminal offenses” but clarifies that this jurisdiction-stripping provision does not preclude review “of constitutional claims or questions of law,” bars judicial review of collateral facts that do not bear on the merits of a final order of removal itself.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/slaybaugh-v-rutherford-county-tennessee/"><em>Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County, Tennessee</em></a><br /> 24-755<br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a common law privilege to access property categorically absolves the government’s duty of just compensation for property it physically destroys.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wye-oak-technology-inc-v-republic-of-iraq/"><em>Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq</em></a><br /> 24-759<br /> <strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether, in a breach of contract case under the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605">Foreign Sovereign Immunities <strong>Act’s</strong></a> third clause, it is sufficient to prove a “direct effect” in the United States applying traditional causation principles, or instead courts must make an additional finding that the contract at issue established or necessarily contemplated the United States as a place of performance; and (2) whether the “act performed in the United States” giving rise to jurisdiction in an action under the statute’s second clause must be an “act” by the foreign sovereign, or instead the statute’s text contains no such limitation.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wade-v-university-of-michigan/"><em>Wade v. University of Michigan</em></a><br /> 24-773<br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for “extraordinary circumstances.”</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/urias-orellana-v-bondi/"><em>Urias-Orellana v. Bondi</em></a><br /> 24-777<br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’s judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1101/">8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)</a>.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jacobson-v-worth/"><em>Jacobson v. Worth</em></a><br /> 24-782<br /> <strong>Issue</strong>: Whether Minnesota’s statute limiting permits for public carry of pistols to those 21 and older comports with the principles underlying the Second Amendment.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/republican-national-committee-v-genser-2/"><em>Republican National Committee v. Genser</em></a><br /> 24-786<br /> <strong>Issues</strong>: (1) What legal standard determines whether a state court’s interpretation of state election law exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review and therefore violates the elections and electors clauses of the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded the bounds of ordinary judicial review and thereby usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections and broad power to “direct” the “Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under those clauses, when it struck down a <a href="https://www.palegis.us/statutes/unconsolidated/law-information/view-statute?txtType=PDF&SessYr=2019&ActNum=0077.&SessInd=0">state statute</a> directing that election officials “shall not” count an individual’s provisional ballot if they “timely received” a mail ballot cast by that person.</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-united-states-2/"><em>Missouri v. United States</em></a><br /> 24-796<br /> <strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether federal courts can second-guess a state’s “reason” for exercising 10th Amendment authority; (2) whether the federal Constitution prohibits states from exercising 10th Amendment authority when motivated by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional; and (3) whether a state official is a proper defendant under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/"><em>Ex parte Young</em></a> simply because the official is regulated by a statute, or instead the official also needs to possess authority to enforce the challenged law.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/montana-asks-justices-to-revive-parental-consent-law-for-minors-to-get-an-abortion/">Montana asks justices to revive parental-consent law for minors to get an abortion</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 9 min read
Read more →
General

Kano APC Says It’s Set to Welcome Kwankwaso Back, Claims NNPP Leader Planning Defection

<p>Kano APC claims Kwankwaso is planning to defect, but NNPP insists there are no such discussions or intentions underway.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.arise.tv/kano-apc-says-its-set-to-welcome-kwankwaso-back-claims-nnpp-leader-planning-defection/">Kano APC Says It’s Set to Welcome Kwankwaso Back, Claims NNPP Leader Planning Defection</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 3 min read
Read more →
Politics

Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/9pXnVQo2qbq6g4HhQZH2xXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage" title="Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-scaled-2-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage" title="Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-scaled-2-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-scaled-2-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-scaled-2-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-1-scaled-2-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage%2F&linkname=Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20ACA%20preventative-care%20coverage" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage%2F&linkname=Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20ACA%20preventative-care%20coverage" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage%2F&linkname=Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20ACA%20preventative-care%20coverage" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage%2F&linkname=Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20ACA%20preventative-care%20coverage" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage%2F&linkname=Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20ACA%20preventative-care%20coverage" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fcourt-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage%2F&title=Court%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20ACA%20preventative-care%20coverage" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage/" data-a2a-title="Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Monday in yet another dispute over the separation of powers. The case is a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure of a relatively obscure section of the Department of Health and Human Services. But although the issue may sound like a technical one, the court’s ruling could have real-world implications for U.S. patients – particularly those who use the highly effective HIV-prevention drugs at the center of the dispute.</p> <p>Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurers and group health plans must cover “preventive health services” at no additional cost to the patient. The Affordable Care Act does not specify what those “preventive health services” are. Instead, the law gives the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force – an independent panel of experts – the power to determine which preventive services insurers must cover.</p> <p>The task force is made up of 16 volunteers, each of whom serves a four-year term. Members of the task force and their recommendations are required by law to be “independent, and to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.”<span id="more-319826"></span></p> <p>The task force’s recommendations for required preventive-care services include contraception, cancer screenings, statin medications, and human-papilloma-virus vaccines. In June 2019, the task force recommended that pre-exposure prophylaxis, known as PrEP, medicine that is highly effective at preventing HIV, be included as a mandatory preventive-care service.</p> <p>The plaintiffs in this case are four individuals and two small businesses that have religious objections to the requirement that insurers and group health plans provide coverage for PrEP. They believe the drug coverage “encourage[s] homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” The lead plaintiff, Braidwood Management, is a Christian-owned business that provides health insurance to its 70 employees.</p> <p>In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas. They argued (among other things) that the structure of the task force violates the Constitution’s appointments clause, which requires “principal officers” of the United States to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.</p> <p>U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed. He ruled that all preventive-care coverage requirements that the task force had imposed since March 23, 2010, when then-President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, were invalid. And going forward, O’Connor prohibited the government from implementing or enforcing the act’s preventive-services coverage requirements.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld O’Connor’s ruling that the structure of the task force violates the appointments clause. But it disagreed with his decision to invalidate all of the task force’s past mandates, and to bar the task force from enforcing mandates going forward. Therefore, it concluded, the government should only be prohibited from enforcing the preventive-services coverage requirements against Braidwood and the other challengers.</p> <p>The Biden administration came to the Supreme Court in September 2024, asking the justices to weigh in, which they agreed in January to do.</p> <p>In its brief on the merits, the Trump administration defended the structure of the task force. The members of the task force, it told the justices, are not principal officers but instead “inferior” officers, who do not require presidential appointments or Senate confirmation: The HHS secretary has appointed all 16 members of the current task force, those task force members can be removed at any time by the HHS secretary, and the secretary can review the task force’s recommendations and block them from having “legal force under the ACA before those recommendations have binding effect.” “Taken together,” then-Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote, “those controls give the Secretary, not the Task Force, ultimate responsibility for whether Task Force recommendations become final, binding decisions” – and in doing so, “create a chain of supervisory accounting through the Secretary to the President”</p> <p>But even if the members of the task force were “principal” officers who should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, Harris continued, the remedy for that violation should be to invalidate only the provision that the court of appeals interpreted as barring review of the task force’s recommendations, leaving the rest of the statutory scheme in place. Going forward, Harris suggested, the task force would therefore be allowed to “make recommendations that will have legal effect only under appropriate supervision by the Secretary.”</p> <p>Braidwood Management and the other plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the conservative lawyer who (among other things) argued on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump in his successful challenge to Colorado’s effort to remove him from the 2024 presidential ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.</p> <p>Braidwood countered that members of the task force cannot be “inferior officers,” and are instead “principal officers,” who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, precisely because federal law requires that both they and their recommendations remain independent and insulated from political pressure.</p> <p>Even if members of the task force could be removed at will, Braidwood continued, they still are not inferior officers because their decisions about which preventive-care services must be covered under the ACA “are not subject to review or reversal by anyone.” The prospect that the HHS secretary can later prevent the task force’s recommendations from having binding effect does not undermine their status as principal officers, Braidwood added, because insurers are required to follow the recommendations “even if the Secretary purports to veto or override its decisions.”</p> <p>And if the task force members are principal officers, Braidwood concluded, the Supreme Court cannot fix the constitutional violation by invalidating only part of the statutory scheme, as the government suggests. That proposed solution, Braidwood emphasized, would allow the HHS secretary to override the task force’s recommendations, but it would still give the task force unbridled discretion to decide <em>not</em> to require insurers to cover items or services. Moreover, Braidwood added, the government’s proposal would not do anything to address the recommendations that the task force issued between March 2010, when the ACA went into effect, and June 2023, when then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra reappointed the members of the current task force.</p> <p>“Friend of the court” briefs supporting the government cautioned that the impact of a ruling for the plaintiffs on public health could be substantial or even “staggering.” One brief, by the American Hospital Association, suggested that if patients are required to pay for the preventive-care services that are currently available at no cost to them, they may respond by not seeking those services or medications at all.</p> <p>Addressing PrEP, the medicine at the center of this dispute, specifically, a brief by public health groups focused on HIV and AIDS noted that the drug has “significantly decreased the rates of new HIV infections across the United States.” If patients no longer have no-cost access to PrEP, the groups said, it will both “thwart ongoing efforts to wipe out HIV in the United States” and “ultimately erase much of the progress that has been made to date.”</p> <p>And a group led by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation similarly warned that if the justices uphold the 5th Circuit’s ruling and limit the availability of preventive-care services, it could increase “(1) the risk of breast cancer progressing to more advanced stages; (2) treatment costs; and (3) the risk of breast-cancer-related deaths.”</p> <p>Briefs filed in support of Braidwood downplayed the concerns about the effects of a ruling in Braidwood’s favor as “overstated.” A group of states, led by Texas, first posited that because providing these kinds of preventive-care services will ultimately reduce an insurer’s costs, there is no need for a task force to require insurers to make them available. And in any event, the states add, the constitutional problem could be eliminated entirely going forward by having the president nominate members of the task force and the Senate confirm them. “And to the extent that the Task Force members’ nominations may be controversial and so prompt greater debate in the Senate, that point cuts in favor of requiring their confirmation, not against it,” the states concluded. </p> <p>The Goldwater Institute, a policy and research group that describes its mission as “advancing the principles of limited government, individual freedom, and constitutional protections,” added that the arguments about the potential effects of a ruling for Braidwood are in essence “a policy judgment” that is best “properly addressed to Congress,” rather than the courts.</p> <p>A decision is expected by late June or early July.</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/18/court-hears-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/court-to-hear-challenge-to-aca-preventative-care-coverage/">Court to hear challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 8 min read
Read more →
Politics

The morning read for Friday, April 18

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/9pXnVQo2qbqPGBmHgwZKsHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Friday, April 18" title="The morning read for Friday, April 18"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Banner200115r-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Friday, April 18" title="The morning read for Friday, April 18" style="float:right;" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-18%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%2018" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-18%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%2018" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-18%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%2018" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-18%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%2018" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-18%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%2018" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-18%2F&title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%2018" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-friday-april-18/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Friday, April 18">Share</a></p><p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-6f0cb929c4604ec1d9bf9fea99765b61">Supreme Court keeps hold on Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship but sets May arguments</a> (Mark Sherman, The Associated Press)</li> <li><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hear-arguments-injunctions-trump-bid-end/story?id=120916742">Supreme Court to hear arguments over injunctions on Trump bid to end birthright citizenship</a> (Devin Dwyer, ABC News)</li> <li><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/supreme-court-end-birthright-citizenship-trump-00296984">Supreme Court to hear arguments on Trump’s bid to start implementing his plan to end birthright citizenship</a> (Erica Orden, Politico)</li> <li><a href="https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/defiance-us-supreme-court-is-tricky-price-2025-04-17/">Defiance of US Supreme Court is tricky to price</a> (Gabriel Rubin, Reuters)</li> <li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/17/politics/can-trump-fire-jerome-powell-supreme-court-humphreys-executor/index.html">Can Trump fire Jerome Powell? The Supreme Court may soon offer some clues</a> (John Fritze, CNN)</li> </ul> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-friday-april-18/">The morning read for Friday, April 18</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →
General

2027: ‘My Support For Tinubu Does Not Affect My PDP Membership’ – Gov Eno

<div><img width="300" height="178" src="https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Governor-Eno-and-Tinubu-300x178.jpg" class="attachment-medium size-medium wp-post-image" alt="Governor Eno and Tinubu" style="margin-bottom: 15px;" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Governor-Eno-and-Tinubu-300x178.jpg 300w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Governor-Eno-and-Tinubu-1024x609.jpg 1024w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Governor-Eno-and-Tinubu-768x457.jpg 768w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Governor-Eno-and-Tinubu-1536x914.jpg 1536w, https://www.naijanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Governor-Eno-and-Tinubu.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></div> <p>Akwa Ibom State Governor, Umo Eno, has addressed the controversy surrounding his open support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu‘s second term bid, insisting that his stance is a matter of conviction and not a betrayal of his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Speaking to a crowd of supporters at a rally in Ikot Ekpene […]</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.naijanews.com/2025/04/18/2027-my-support-for-tinubu-does-not-affect-my-pdp-membership-gov-eno/">2027: ‘My Support For Tinubu Does Not Affect My PDP Membership’ – Gov Eno</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.naijanews.com">Naija News</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 3 min read
Read more →