Public Health Litigation Round-Up

October 14, 2025 | Christina Severin

Jurisdictions utilize a number of policy levers to address public health priorities, including enacting or amending laws or issuing regulations. The judicial branch is another source of public health policy, and health agencies across the country are influenced or directly impacted by court decisions each year. This health policy update describes recent decisions from state supreme courts all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (the Court) recently closed out its 2025 term and heard several cases on areas of public health concern, from preventive care access to tobacco control. Below are summaries of these cases and any potential public health or health agency impacts.

• Kennedy v. Braidwood Management: The issue before the Court was whether the operation of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was constitutional. The ACA tied the recommendations of USPSTF — comprised of volunteers appointed by the Secretary of HHS — to preventive service health care coverage requirements, including screening for lung cancer and osteoporosis. Challengers argued that because USPSTF members are appointed and not confirmed by the Senate, their powers and duties were invalid and violated the constitution. The Court disagreed, adding that not only can the Secretary appoint and remove task force members at will but also can review and block the task force’s recommendations before they take effect. This decision maintains USPSTF’s current operations and authorities and avoids potential disruptions in preventive care, while clarifying the Secretary’s powers over its membership and impact.
• Medina v. Planned Parenthood: The issue in this case was whether an individual can challenge a state’s decision to exclude a Medicaid provider. In 2018, the state of South Carolina limited Planned Parenthood’s ability to participate in the Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood and an impacted patient sued, alleging that the state’s actions violated a federal law that gives Medicaid beneficiaries the choice of any willing provider of family planning services and that individuals have a right to sue state officials for that violation. Ultimately, the Court found no right to challenge the state’s actions here, and limited individuals from obtaining relief from the courts in similar circumstances.
• FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC: This case was about whether the FDA acted inappropriately when it denied manufacturer requests to market flavored e-cigarettes such as blueberry parfait and rainbow road, which appeal to youth. FDA found no evidence that the benefits to adults outweighed the risks to youth but did so in the context of evolving sub regulatory guidance. While the federal appeals court sided with the manufacturers, the Court disagreed and found that FDA’s actions were sufficiently aligned with its guidance.
• Age-Based Restrictions to Online Content: In the summer of 2025, the Court decided Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which upheld a Texas state law requiring age verification for access to certain adult websites. Here, the Court found that the state’s access restriction survived a first amendment challenge and only incidentally burdened an adult’s right of access in this context. Shortly after that decision, NetChoice, LLC v. Fitch came before the Court via an emergency appeal. The Court denied the challengers’ request to stop Mississippi from enforcing a law restricting minors’ access to social media while litigation continues in the lower courts, so the law remains in place. However, health agencies and their counsel should be aware of these cases given the legislative interest in age verification laws and the focus on the health impacts of social media on youth.

Other Federal Courts

Decisions from other federal courts also have public health impacts, including two cases regarding health agencies’ operation of their newborn screening programs. After years of litigation, a federal appeals court found that Michigan’s retention and use of samples from its newborn screening program had not subjected parents to an unreasonable search or seizure and did not interfere with parental rights. And in New Jersey, a court dismissed plaintiff parents’ constitutional claims challenging the state’s blood spot retention practices.

Litigation regarding vaccine requirements also continues in the federal courts. In Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen, a federal appeals court rejected an argument that a state law protecting unvaccinated individuals from discrimination in employment and access to services was in conflict with and preempted by federal law. And in Miller v. McDonald, the appellate court upheld a lower court’s determination that the parents challenging the state of New York’s elimination of a religious exemption from school vaccination requirements failed to allege a constitutional violation. Parents petitioned for review by the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided if it will hear the case.

State Court Cases

In the past year, several state supreme courts have also issued decisions on issues relevant to public health agencies, from environmental impacts to public health authority. For example, in Held v. Montana, the supreme court of Montana found in favor of a group of young people who challenged state laws limiting consideration of climate impacts as violating the state’s constitution.

In March of this year, the New Mexico supreme court decided Amdor v. Grisham, which considered the scope of the governor’s emergency powers to address gun violence and substance misuse. In this case, the governor had declared a public health emergency and issued orders that included firearm restrictions and directives to state agencies to address the overdose crisis. The orders eventually expired, but litigation continued with the state court affirming the governor’s power to issue the orders under state emergency law.

Finally, pandemic-era public health authority litigation continues. The supreme court of North Carolina recently allowed additional litigation against the state challenging health orders that required business closures and other limitations to proceed. This follows an earlier decision where the same court allowed a case challenging the state’s enforcement of COVID-19 related actions to proceed under a theory that the business owner’s state constitutional rights were violated.