Supreme Court justices debate constitutional authority over task force appointments

The Supreme Court of the United States convened on April 21, 2025, to discuss the case of Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., focusing on the constitutional implications of authority vested in government officials. The justices engaged in a detailed examination of whether Congress has appropriately delegated appointment powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (H&HS) and the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Justice Gorsuch raised the concept of constitutional avoidance, suggesting that the court should interpret the law in a way that avoids constitutional issues. He argued that the authority of the Secretary over the director could resolve potential conflicts. Justice Kavanaugh concurred, emphasizing that the Secretary is indeed allowed to appoint the task force, which is a point that has not been disputed.

The discussion then shifted to the core issue of whether Congress has vested the appointment authority in the AHRQ director, which could be deemed unconstitutional if the director is classified as a principal officer. The justices debated the implications of Congress granting appointment powers to multiple officials, including the Secretary and others, and whether such delegation remains constitutional.

Justice Kagan questioned the adequacy of the statute's language, suggesting that it should explicitly require the Secretary's approval for appointments made by the director. The justices acknowledged the complexity of the statutory language and the potential need for clarification from the Fifth Circuit if the court were to reject the principal officer argument.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's deliberations highlighted significant constitutional questions regarding the delegation of authority within federal agencies. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the structure of government appointments and the balance of power among federal officials. The justices indicated that further examination by the Fifth Circuit may be necessary to resolve these intricate legal issues.