Plaintiffs contend that the requirement for coverage by a volunteer board of medical experts is unconstitutional due to the lack of Senate approval, raising both religious and procedural objections.

Healthcare professionals and public health advocates have expressed concerns that a ruling against the ACA could severely impact access to preventive services for millions of Americans.

The Biden administration is appealing a lower court's decision, focusing on the constitutionality of linking no-cost coverage to recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Mitchell's broader agenda includes dismantling LGBTQ+ protections and ACA mandates, with claims that covering PrEP promotes behaviors contrary to their religious values.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a pivotal case, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which threatens no-cost preventive care for over 150 million Americans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

A ruling against the ACA's preventive care provision could allow insurers to deny coverage for essential services, including statins, HIV prevention medications like PrEP, and various cancer screenings.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could eliminate the mandate for insurers to provide essential health services at no cost, potentially leading to increased out-of-pocket expenses for patients.

The challengers' claims regarding religious liberties are being addressed in separate proceedings, while the current case focuses on constitutional issues related to the appointments clause.

Several justices questioned the extent of the HHS Secretary's power over task force recommendations, especially given that task force members can be removed at will.

A decision favoring the challengers could redefine the authority of health advisory bodies, potentially politicizing healthcare decisions and moving away from nonpartisan medical expertise.

The lawsuit, initiated by conservative Christian employers in Texas, argues that USPSTF members should be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, rather than being selected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

During oral arguments, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' claims, while Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett showed potential support for upholding the authority of the USPSTF.