The Fifth Circuit unanimously held that unelected bureaucrats don’t get to make unilateral decisions about Americans’ healthcare coverage, which has led to tremendous increases in the cost of insurance.
THREAD:
/2 Today, with co-counsel Jonathan F. Mitchell, we secured a resounding win before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra. A unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit held that a key provision of the Affordable Care Act violates Article II’s Appointments Clause by empowering the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to dictate the preventive care that all private insurers must cover.
/3 In other words—unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats don't get to make unilateral decisions about Americans’ healthcare coverage, which has led to tremendous increases in the cost of insurance for all Americans.
/4 The Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” requires all private health insurers to cover preventive care without any cost-sharing arrangements such as copays or deductibles. It also requires private insurers to cover any preventive care that receives an “A” or “B” rating from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
/5 We argued that this arrangement violates Article II of the Constitution because the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force wield significant powers yet are not appointed as “officers of the United States” as required by Article II.
/6 The Fifth Circuit unanimously agreed and held that the members of the Task Force are “principal officers” who must be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent and that the Affordable Care Act violates Article II’s Appointments Clause by empowering the Task Force to impose preventive-care coverage mandates on private insurers.
/7 Effectively, all preventive-care coverage mandates imposed by the Task Force since March 23, 2010, are unenforceable in the Fifth Circuit, and private insurers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi need not comply with them.
/8 The Fifth Circuit also revived our Appointments Clause challenges to the preventive-care coverage mandates imposed by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) and remanded for the district court to further consider those claims.
/1🚨UNCOVERED — Internal documents show that Oregon officials knew they lacked cause to sue the Trump Administration over its new regulations intended to prevent illegal aliens from receiving welfare.
They filed the lawsuit anyway.
/2 On July 21, 2025, twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies, alleging that providing legal residency status verification to the federal government would cause irreparable harm.
/3 In their lawsuit, the plaintiff states allege that they would be harmed by having to “dramatically restructure” their welfare programs.
The U.S. Department of Energy has opened a public comment period on AFL’s petition calling for the rescission of an unlawful Biden-era DEI contracting regulation.
The deadline for members of the public to submit public comments is Thursday, April 9.
/2 AFL’s petition, filed in January, asks DOE to rescind a regulation requiring DOE management and operating contractors to adopt and maintain race- and sex-based DEI plans and to submit them annually as a condition of doing business with the federal government.
/3 This Biden-era rule conflicts with federal civil rights law and pressures contractors to sort, evaluate, and favor workers based on race and sex.
/1🚨EXPOSED — The Deep State’s Global Population Control Plan:
A newly retracted intelligence assessment reveals the CIA identified higher birth rates in third-world countries as a threat to global economic development — and came up with a plan to “address it.”
/2 The 2020 CIA intelligence assessment titled “Worldwide: Pandemic-Related Contraceptive Shortfalls Threaten Economic Development” warned that the COVID-19 pandemic was limiting contraception access and undermining efforts to address population pressure in the developing world.
/3 This intelligence assessment, produced by the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis, Office of Global Issues, is 1 of 19 intelligence products that “did not meet CIA and IC analytic tradecraft standards and FAILED TO BE INDEPENDENT OF POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
/1🚨EXPOSED — AFL has released a report finding that 80% of the American Bar Association’s filings from the last decade support leftist causes and lawfare against President Trump.
The ABA is not a neutral arbiter and does not deserve to be treated like one.
/2 AFL’s examination of the ABA’s amicus brief program, which includes 87 briefs filed from April 2016 to February 2026, reveals that 80% of the organization’s filings advocated for liberal or progressive outcomes.
/3 It also reveals a 100% opposition rate to the Trump Administration across both President Trump’s first and second terms, in cases in which the ABA filed a brief.
/1🚨EXPOSED — Biden CIA’s War on Motherhood:
Newly released CIA documents reveal the Biden Administration identified “motherhood” and “homemaking” as indicators of “white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism” (REMVE).
/2 The intelligence assessment reveals the top-to-bottom bias at Biden’s CIA.
An agency with critical intelligence responsibilities was spending its resources targeting women promoting motherhood.
/3 The Trump Administration recently retracted a 2021 intelligence assessment titled “Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radicalization and Recruitment.”
/1🚨NEW — The Eleventh Circuit should affirm Judge Cannon’s ruling and order the destruction of Volume II of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL investigation into President Trump.
/2 AFL’s amicus brief, filed in United States v. Knight First Amendment Institute, argues that because Volume II is the product of an unconstitutional investigation, it is not subject to the Federal Records Act and therefore does not need to be preserved under those provisions.
/3 AFL also argues that even if Volume II is subject to the Federal Records Act, it would still qualify for authorized disposition under the Records Disposal Act, and its disclosure would be prohibited by the Privacy Act of 1974.