(NewsNation) — Three cases before the Supreme Court could impact health care for Americans, even though they aren’t actually about health care policy at all.

All three cases have to do with how federal agencies operate and what authority they have to make and enforce rules, as well as how those agencies are funded. Depending on how the cases are decided, it could mean that agencies will no longer have the authority to make rules regarding things like what counts as necessary preventative care required under the Affordable Care Act.

Instead, those types of regulations would have to go before a Congress that is often gridlocked and is historically slow to respond to changing technology and science. Those delays could mean that rules and regulations for health care would lag behind scientific recommendations for patient care.

Here are the three cases to watch.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Herring fishermen don’t seem very connected to healthcare, but this case could have a big impact on how much authority federal agencies have to interpret laws regarding regulations.

Regulators have required herring fishermen to carry federal monitors on their boats for decades. Those monitors check and record information on the health of fish in the North Atlantic. But a group of fishermen have sued, saying the 1976 law mandating the boats carry monitors doesn’t specify that the fishermen have to pay for the monitors and the National Marine Fisheries Service doesn’t have the authority to make them.

If the courts side with the fisherman, it would overturn something known as the Chevron doctrine, named for a 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, where the Court ruled the courts should generally defer to federal agencies when it comes to the interpretation of laws regarding rules and regulations.

Justices in the Court’s conservative majority have been critical of Chevron, including Justice Clarence Thomas who had previously defended the precedent. If it’s overturned, interpretations made by subject matter experts at agencies could be more easily overturned by judges who are not experts in the field. It would also mean any new rules issued by agencies based on updated science or technology, could very easily be tied up in courts before being implemented.

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

This case involves the Americans with Disabilities Act, designed to ensure disabled Americans have access to needed accommodations. In this case, Deborah Laufer sued a number of hotels that failed to provide information on accessible hotel rooms for disabled travelers.

The hotel is arguing because Laufer didn’t ever intend to actually book a stay, she doesn’t have legal standing to sue them. Attorneys for Laufer, who uses a wheelchair and is visually impaired, suffered an injury because she was unable to find needed information about the hotel’s ability to accommodate her and does have the right to sue.

Disability and civil rights advocates say that the ability of individuals to act as testers for laws like the ADA is critical for enforcement as lawsuits like Laufer’s may force businesses to be compliant with the ADA and include required information disabled travelers need, so they don’t book a stay only to arrive and find, for example, rooms or bathrooms are not accessible for those using wheelchairs.

Opponents argue it’s the government’s job to enforce the ADA, not private individuals, and lawsuits should only be able to be brought by those who experienced actual harm — like arriving at a hotel and finding out there are no accessible rooms available.

The case could have an impact beyond the ADA, limiting the ability of advocates to test businesses for compliance with regulations and ensure compliance before people were discriminated against or suffered harm.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited

This case has to do with how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, founded after the 2008 recession, is funded. Congress designed the agency to be funded by the Federal Reserve instead of by Congressional appropriations in order to make it more independent and shield it from political influence.

Those representing payday lender Community Financial Services Association of America argue that Congress can’t provide unlimited funding outside of appropriations according to the U.S. Constitution. They argue that Congress can’t set up an agency with unlimited funding, not negotiated through Congressional appropriations.

Those defending the CFPB argue Congress has the authority to fund an agency however it wants as part of the power of the purse. They also argue it’s up to Congress if the body wants to fund a program without setting a specific dollar amount regarding appropriations. In questioning lawyers, the conservative majority appeared to be split, as some Justices seemed to be pushing back on the idea that the funding was unconstitutional noting that Congress has the power to change the way the CFPB is funded at any time.

If the Court decides against the CFPB, it could have an impact on how Congress funds other programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, that are not funded through the annual appropriations process and which may not have specific dollar amounts attached to funding.