A key piece of former President Barack Obama's legacy will be heading back to the Supreme Court for potential reversal later this year.

As The Hill reports, the high court has agreed to consider whether a panel charged with overseeing a critical part of the Affordable Care Act's provisions were constitutionally appointed, potentially setting the stage for a serious blow to Obama's primary legislative achievement.

SCOTUS says yes

A brief order from the high court issued on Friday paves the way for the justices to assess the status of those sitting on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and whether their positions and roles pass constitutional muster.

Underlying the current dispute is the fact that the Affordable Care Act mandates that insurers and health plans alike include coverage for over 100 preventive health services free of charge, with the list of services determined by the aforementioned task force.

A group of individual citizens and a pair of small business sued over the arrangement, particularly in relation to, as Politico notes, the task force's inclusion of HIV-prevention drug known as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as well as of “contraceptive methods that some regard as abortifacients” that are violative of religious rights.

In that litigation, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that members of the task force are “principal” officers pursuant to the Constitution, and therefore require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, a characterization with which the Biden Justice Department and a cadres of Democrat-led state attorneys general disagree.

As part of its petition to the high court, the DOJ wrote, “the court's holding jeopardizes healthcare protections that have been in place for 14 years and that millions of Americans currently enjoy.”

Both parties eager for hearing

Notably, the challengers in the dispute, represented by the America First Legal Foundation in conjunction with attorney Jonathan Mitchell, are in agreement with the Biden DOJ that the case should be heard by the high court.

In court filings, Mitchell explained, “The respondents disagree with the Solicitor General's criticisms of the court of appeals' opinion, as well as her dire predictions of what might happen if the court of appeals' ruling is allowed to stand.”

He continued, “But none of those disagreements affect the certworthiness of this case. The petition satisfies this Court's criteria for certiorari and presents an issue of exceptional importance.”

As Politico notes, the timing of the impending hearing, which will come after Donald Trump's new administration begins, presents uncertainty about whether the DOJ will continue to argue Biden's stance or will simply choose not to defend the constitutionality of the task force appointments at issue.

Even so, if the Trump DOJ elects not to defend the government's prior decision, the high court has the option of appointing alternative legal counsel to do so instead.

Fate of panel appointments, coverage in the balance

As things currently stand, the matter will likely be scheduled for oral arguments sometime in March or April, with a decision expected no later than the end of June.

According to Andrew Twinamatsiko of Georgetown University's Health Policy and the Law Initiative, an imminent decision is crucial, asserting, “We need certainty, and the Supreme Court stepping and defining what does and doesn't stand would help everyone in the health care industry plan for future enrollment,” but he also lamented that “granting cert also means there's a likelihood that all the services might be gone, so it's a mixed bag.”