United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`No. 23-10326
`____________
`
`Braidwood Management, Incorporated; John Scott
`Kelley; Kelley Orthodontics; Ashley Maxwell; Zach
`Maxwell; Joel Starnes,
`
`Plaintiffs—Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
`
`Joel Miller; Gregory Scheideman,
`
`Plaintiffs—Cross-Appellants,
`
`versus
`
`Xavier Becerra, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
`Services, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services;
`United States of America; Janet Yellen, Secretary, U.S.
`Department of Treasury, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury;
`Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, in her official
`capacity as Secretary of Labor,
`
`Defendants—Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
`______________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Texas
`USDC No. 4:20-CV-283
`______________________________
`
`ON REMAND FROM
`THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`FILED
`August 26, 2025
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`Case: 23-10326 Document: 363-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 23-10326
`2
`Before Willett, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
`Per Curiam:*
`This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs
`sued the federal government and several cabinet secretaries, seeking to enjoin
`enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive-care mandates. Among
`other claims, P laintiffs alleged that the structure of the entities responsible
`for issuing those mandates violated the Appointments Clause of Article II.
`The district court agree d as to the members of the United States
`Preventive Services Task Force but rejected the Appointments Clause
`challenge to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
`and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The court
`vacated agency action taken to enforc e the preventive- care mandates and
`enjoined Defendants from enforcing them against anyone. Both sides
`appealed.
`In our original opinion , we held that Task Force members are
`principal officers who were not validly appointed under Article II. Braidwood
`Mgmt., Inc. v. Becerra, 104 F.4th 930, 947 (5th Cir. 2024), rev’d and remanded,
`145 S. Ct. 2427 (2025) . We therefore affirmed the injunction as to P laintiffs
`but reversed its universal injunction. Id. at 955.
`On Plaintiffs’ cross -appeal, we noted that, unlike the Task Force,
`ACIP and HRSA operate under the supervisory authority of the Secretary
`of Health and Human Service s. Id. at 956. The government argued that the
`Secretary exercised this authority to cure any Appointments Clause defect
`by ratifying ACIP ’s a nd HRSA’s recommendations. But P laintiffs raised
`compelling—and largely unrebutted—arguments that the Secretary’s
`ratification memo presents serious APA concerns. Id. We concluded that
`
`* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
`Case: 23-10326 Document: 363-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 23-10326
`3
`those issues should be addressed by the district court in the first instance and
`remanded the cross-appeal for that reason. Id. at 957.
`The Supreme Court has now held that “the Task Force members’
`appointments are fully consistent with the Appointments Clause in Article
`II of the Constitution.” Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc ., 145 S. Ct. 2427 ,
`2461 (2025). The Court reversed our judgment and remanded for further
`proceedings consistent with its opinion. It did not address P laintiffs’ cross-
`appeal.
`Accordingly, we REMAND to the district court for further
`proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision and with those
`portions of our prior opinion that remain unaffected.
`
`Case: 23-10326 Document: 363-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`