Black-Led Organizations Mobilize in High-Stakes Supreme Court Battle

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025

Black-Led Organizations Mobilize
in High-Stakes Supreme Court Battle

Amicus brief filed in landmark ACA case defending preventive care access

(National)—On February 25, 2025, The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) and PrEP in Black America (PIBA) joined Afiya Center (Dallas), Women with a Vision (New Orleans), SisterLove (Atlanta), BlaqOut (Kansas City, Missouri), and Equality Federation in filing an amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief in the Braidwood v Kennedy (previously known as Braidwood v Becerra) case on appeal in the Supreme Court in order to take a stand defending access to preventative health care nationally and to protect the Black and brown lives that will be lost should this access be overturned.

“I’m incredibly honored to stand alongside these Black and LGBTQ+ organizations as we boldly demand the highest court reckon with the profound harm the loss of preventative healthcare would have on our communities. While some may decide this is the moment to make ourselves smaller and less susceptible to opposition—now is the time to make it clear that we will continue to unapologetically advocate for our lives and well-being,” says S. Mandisa Moore-O’Neal, Executive Director of CHLP. 

Braidwood v Kennedy, a case originally out of the Northern District of Texas on appeal in the Supreme Court this term, represents a recent attack upon the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), challenging the fact that private insurers are currently required to cover preventative care without cost-sharing (co-pays). The forms of preventative care under attack range from PrEP to cancer screenings. They include any preventative care that receives an “A” or “B” rating from the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent body charged by Congress to review forms of preventative care available and make recommendations that impact what is covered under the ACA. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that members of USPSTF are unconstitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While preventative care is currently mandated to be covered without cost-sharing, a decision for the plaintiff could have devastating impacts nationwide.

The ripples of these impacts will not be felt equally nationwide but rather will be strongest in the already underserved South, primarily within Black and brown communities, especially by Black women and LGBTQ+ people. Danielle M. Campbell, Founding Member of PrEP in Black America (PIBA), warns, “The outcome of this case will either be a turning point for health justice or a devastating setback that endangers more Black lives. As HIV-related health gaps widen between Black people and other communities, this decision will determine whether we dismantle barriers to PrEP access or allow them to persist—further deepening the crisis.”

Pages upon pages in study after study, many of which are referenced in the brief, highlight both the benefits that the coverage of preventative care has had for Black and brown Southerners, as well as the fact that serious inequities still persist. Leisha McKinley-Beach, CEO of the Black Public Health Institute, adds, “PrEP has the power to be a game-changer for Black communities, but only if access is protected and expanded. If this ruling makes it harder to get, we risk turning a life-saving tool into yet another missed opportunity for Black health equity.”

Black people are four times more likely to die from HIV than any other racial or ethnic group; for most types of cancer, Black people have the highest death rates and shortest survival rates; the list of such health disparities goes on. The organizations that joined together in filing this amicus brief did so to make sure the voices of those who would be most impacted by this decision would be clearly heard by the highest court in our land. The brief makes unequivocally clear that the Court’s decision in this case will have implications far beyond the mere setting of legal precedent—peoples’ lives are at stake. 

A copy of the brief filed with the court can be found here. Oral arguments are scheduled before the Court on April 21, 2025. 

##