GLAAD AND LGBTQ COMMUNITY ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS RESPOND TO U.S. SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS HEARD IN KENNEDY v. BRAIDWOOD CASE

New York, New York – Monday, April 21, 205 – GLAAD, the world’s largest LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) media advocacy organization, together with a community advocacy coalition led by Lambda Legal, PrEP4All, Harvard Law’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI), and The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), today released statements following oral arguments in the Braidwood case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning.

The plaintiffs in this case are four individuals and two small businesses that originally brought the case based on religious objections to the requirement that insurers and group health plans provide coverage for PrEP. They believe the drug coverage “encourage[s] homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” The lead plaintiff, Braidwood Management, is a Christian-owned business that provides health insurance to its 70 employees, in a case preview by the SCOTUS Blog.

While the case originally singled out exclusions to PrEP and HIV prevention medication, Braidwood has evolved into a major threat to most current ACA prevention coverage requirements which are providing millions of Americans with access to several health services such as cancer screenings, heart disease medications, medications for infants, PrEP, and several other preventive care services without paying out-of-pocket.  

A Reporter/Creator Guide & Fact Sheet on the case can be found HERE.

A full transcript of oral arguments can be found HERE.

Statement by Lambda Legal HIV Project Director, Jose Abrigo:
“The Braidwood case is about whether science or politics will guide our nation’s public health policy. Allowing ideological or religious objections to override scientific consensus would set a dangerous precedent. Although this case began with an attack on PrEP coverage, a critical HIV prevention tool, it would be a serious mistake to think this only affects LGBTQ people. The real target is one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act: the preventive services protections. That includes cancer screenings, heart disease prevention, diabetes testing, and more. If the plaintiffs succeed, the consequences will be felt across every community in this country, by anyone who relies on preventive care to stay healthy. What’s at stake is whether we will uphold the promise of affordable and accessible health care for all or allow a small group of ideologues to dismantle it for everyone. We as a country are only as healthy as our neighbors and an attack on one group’s rights is an attack on all.”

Statement by PrEP4All Executive Director Jeremiah Johnson (he/him):
“We are hopeful that the justices will maintain ACA protections for PrEP and other preventive services, however, advocates are poised to fight for access no matter the outcome. Implementing cost-sharing  would have an enormous impact on all Americans, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Over 150 million people could suddenly find themselves having to dig deep into already strained household budgets to pay for care that they had previously received for free. Even small amounts of cost sharing lead to drops in access to preventive services.

For PrEP, just a $10 increase in the cost of medication doubled PrEP abandonment rates in a 2024 modeling study. Loss of PrEP access would be devastating with so much recent progress in reining in new HIV infections in the US. This would also be a particularly disappointing time to lose comprehensive coverage for PrEP with a once every six month injectable version set to be approved this summer.”

Statement by CHLPI Clinical Fellow, Anu Dairkee (she/her):
“Today’s oral arguments in the Braidwood case underscore what is at stake for the health and well-being of millions of Americans. This case is not just about legal technicalities—it is about whether people across the country will continue to have access to the preventive health services they need, without cost sharing, regardless of who they are or where they come from. 

Since the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision took effect in 2010, Americans have benefited from a dramatic increase in the use of services that detect disease early, promote healthy living, and reduce long-term health costs. These benefits are rooted in the work of leading scientists and public health experts, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose recommendations are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence. 

Any shift away from cost-free access to preventive care could have wide-ranging implications, potentially limiting access for those who are already navigating economic hardship and health disparities.  

If Braidwood prevails, the consequences will be felt nationwide. We risk losing access to lifesaving screenings and preventive treatments that have become standard care over the past decade. This case should serve as a wake-up call: science, not politics, must guide our health care system. The health of our nation depends on it.”

Statement by CHLP Staff Attorney, Kae Greenberg (he/him):
“We are grateful for the Justices who steadfastly centered constitutionality and didn’t allow a deadly political agenda to deter them from their job at hand.  While we won’t know the final decision until June, what we do know now is not having access to a full range of preventative healthcare is deadly for all of us– especially those who live at the intersections of racial, gender and economic injustice. We are crystal clear how the efforts to undermine the ACA, of which this is a very clear attempt, fit part and parcel into an overall agenda to rollback so much of the ways our communities access dignity and justice. Although the Plaintiffs’ arguments today were cloaked in esoteric legal language, at it’s heart, this case revolves around the Christian Right’s objection to “supporting” those who they do not agree with, and is simply going to result in people dying who would otherwise have lived long lives. This is why CHLP is invested and continues in advocacy with our partners, many of whom are included here.”

Statement by GLAAD President & CEO Sarah Kate Ellis (she/her):
“Today’s Supreme Court hearing in the Braidwood case is a pivotal moment for the health and rights of all Americans. This case, rooted in discriminatory objections to medical necessities like PrEP, can undermine efforts to end the HIV epidemic and also jeopardize access to essential services like cancer screenings and heart disease medications, disproportionately affecting LGBTQ people and communities of color. Religious exemptions should not be weaponized to erode healthcare protections and restrict medically necessary, life-saving preventative healthcare for every American.”

Other Resources and Case Information

• Lambda Legal case file
• Original Complaint/Texas Court Filing
• The Supreme Court Case That Could Change Health Care Coverage for Millions of Americans, Equality Federation and CHLP (2025)
• Braidwood Community Explainer, Equality Fed CHLP 2025
• Braidwood Community Explainer, Equality Fed CHLP 2025 Spanish
• Explaining Litigation Challenging the ACA’s Preventive Services Requirements: Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra (KFF)