LightNews LightNews
spottyrules.bsky.social
@spottyrules.bsky.social
25 followers 35 following 16 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted
jessdkant.bsky.social
In a few short weeks, the Supreme Court may very well find in favor of a man who is suing to stop PrEP coverage for millions because he objects to theoretical possibility that someone he employs could one day access PrEP via insurance, and this "encourages and facilitates homosexual behavior."
B. The Present Controversy 1. Respondents are four individuals and two small businesses who object to Congress’s directive that health insurance issuers and group health plans gener- ally must cover preventive services without cost shar- ing. App., infra, 7a. Five of the six respondents “do not currently participate in the health care market.” Id. at 62a; see D. Ct. Doc. 111-1, ¶ 5 (Jan. 6, 2023); D. Ct. Doc. 111-2, ¶¶ 5-6 (Jan. 6, 2023); D. Ct. Doc. 111-3, ¶ 5 (Jan. 6, 2023). Those respondents nonetheless object to the ACA’s requirement that issuers and plans cover preex- posure prophylaxis (PrEP) medications, which the Task Force has assigned an “A” rating based on their effec- tiveness at preventing HIV infection in certain at-risk individuals. See D. Ct. Doc. 14, at 8, 10-11 (July 20, 2020). Those respondents state that PrEP medications “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior,” which conflicts with their religious beliefs. Id. at 8. 7 Braidwood Management is the only respondent that currently participates in the health insurance market. App., infra, 55a. Braidwood offers coverage to its ap- proximately 70 employees through a self-insured plan. Ibid. Its owner wishes to exclude from that plan “cov- erage of preventive care such as * * * PrEP drugs” because he “objects to coverage of those services on re- ligious grounds.” Ibid. Braidwood does not allege, how- ever, that any of its employees have ever sought cover- age for PrEP medications. 2. Respondents filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. As relevant here, respondents contend that the Task Force’s structure violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, because, in their view, Task Force members are principal officers of the United States who have not been appointed by the Pres- ident with the advice and consent of the Senate. App., infra, 8a. Respondents’ operative complaint seeks in- junctive and declaratory relief but does not seek vaca- tur under Section 706(2) of the Administrative Proce- dure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2). D. Ct. Doc. 14, at 13- 18. After this suit was filed, the Secretary ratified all Task Force “A” and “B” recommendations then cur- rently in effect. D. Ct. Doc. 65, at 6.
May 24, 2025 at 10:24 PM