Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt., 145 S. Ct. 2427 (June 27, 2025) Kavanaugh, J.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution. The U. S. Preventive Services Task Force, an entity within the Department of Health and Human Services, issues public recommendations about preventive healthcare services—for example, cancer and diabetes screenings. Before 2010, the Task Force’s recommendations were purely advisory. But the Affordable Care Act of 2010 now mandates that health insurers cover some of the recommended services at no cost to the insured. The Secretary of Health and Human Services appointed the 16 current members of the Task Force. The question in this case is whether appointment of Task Force members by the Secretary is consistent with the Appointments Clause in Article II. That question turns on whether the Task Force members are principal officers or inferior officers. Principal officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That process can be lengthy and therefore can hinder the Executive Branch’s ability to promptly fill offices—and thus also impede the President’s ability to execute the laws through his subordinate executive officers. By contrast, inferior executive officers may be directly appointed by the President or by the head of a department, such as by the Secretary of HHS—a more efficient and expeditious process.
The Executive Branch under both President Trump and President Biden has argued that the Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers and therefore may be appointed by the Secretary of HHS. We agree. The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect. So, Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President, preserving the chain of command in Article II. See Edmond v. United States, 520 U. S. 651, 663, 117 S. Ct. 1573, 137 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1997). Therefore, under Article II and this Court’s precedents, the Task Force members are inferior officers. As a result, appointment of Task Force members by the Secretary of HHS is consistent with the Appointments Clause.
We granted certiorari to consider whether appointment of Task Force members by the Secretary of HHS violates the Appointments Clause. 604 U. S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 1038, 220 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2025).
The Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution specifies how “Officers of the United States,” as distinct from employees, must be appointed. §2, cl. 2. An officer exercises “‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.’” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 245, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 201 L. Ed. 2d 464 (2018). An employee, by contrast, does not exercise significant governmental authority. See ibid. The text of the Appointments Clause “very clearly divides all its officers into two classes”: principal officers and inferior officers. United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 509, 25 L. Ed. 482 (1879). Here, all agree that the Preventive Services Task Force members are officers. The question is whether they are principal or inferior.
How does a court determine whether an executive officer is principal (and must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate) or inferior (and may be appointed by the President or Head of Department alone)? Principal officers in the Executive Branch encompass at least the Heads of Departments, who report directly to the President. Examples include the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General.
Inferior officers are most readily defined by their relationship to principal officers. “Generally speaking,” whether “one is an ‘inferior’ officer depends on whether he has a superior” other than the President, Edmond, 520 U. S., at 662, 117 S. Ct. 1573, 137 L. Ed. 2d 917, and how much power the officer “exercises free from control by a superior,” United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U. S. 1, 17, 141 S. Ct. 1970, 210 L. Ed. 2d 268 (2021). In Edmond v. United States, the Court summarized the governing principle: Inferior officers are those “whose work is directed and supervised at some level by others who were appointed by Presidential nomination with the advice and consent of the Senate.” 520 U. S., at 663, 117 S. Ct. 1573, 137 L. Ed. 2d 917.
As the author of Edmond, Justice Scalia, once explained: “It is perfectly obvious” that the language in Article II authorizing department heads to appoint inferior officers “was intended merely to make clear . . . that those officers appointed by the President with Senate approval could on their own appoint their subordinates, who would, of course, by chain of command still be under the direct control of the President.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 720-721, 108 S. Ct. 2597, 101 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In sum, considering the Secretary’s removal and review authorities together, the inferior-officer issue is quite straightforward under Edmond, Free Enterprise Fund, and Arthrex. In light of those precedents, “we have no hesitation in concluding” that Task Force members are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of HHS is permissible under the Appointments Clause. Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 510, 130 S. Ct. 3138, 177 L. Ed. 2d 706.
To sum up: Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS’s supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President’s supervision and direction. So under Article II and this Court’s precedents, Task Force members are inferior officers, and Congress may vest the power to appoint them in the Secretary of HHS. Congress has done so, and the Secretary has appointed the Task Force members pursuant to that grant of authority.
Therefore, the Task Force members’ appointments are fully consistent with the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution. The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers’ design of the Appointments Clause: The Task Force members were appointed by and are supervised and directed by the Secretary of HHS. And the Secretary of HHS, in turn, answers to the President of the United States.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
• The Executive Branch argues that the Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers and may be appointed by the Secretary of HHS. The Supreme Court agreed.
• The task force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect.
• Task forces members are supervised and directed by the Secretary who in turn answered to the President, preserving the chain of command in Article II.
• Therefore, no Article II and the Supreme Court precedents, the Task Force members are inferior officers. As a result, appointment of Task Force, members by the Secretary of HHS is consistent with the Appointments Clause.
