Login
Major medical organizations that support West Virginia’s vaccine mandates for schoolchildren have extensive financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, according to Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
CHD filed an amicus brief in a closely watched West Virginia vaccine exemption case, urging the state’s supreme court to scrutinize submissions from groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which filed briefs backing West Virginia’s vaccine mandate policies.
According to CHD, the groups cannot be treated as neutral public health authorities because of their longstanding monetary and institutional relationships with vaccine manufacturers.
“In fact, the vaccine marketing complex permeates nearly every HAO [health advocacy organization] and research university in this country via donations, grants, and other perks of association, including board positions,” the brief states.
The filing is part of a broader legal challenge involving religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements in West Virginia, one of the few states that historically maintained strict limits on non-medical exemptions.
Governor asks court to uphold ruling
The amicus brief comes as West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey has asked the state Supreme Court to uphold a Raleigh County Circuit Court ruling that found the state’s school vaccine policy violates a 2023 religious freedom law when it does not include religious exemptions.
West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey filed an amicus brief on Morrisey’s behalf in Board of Education v. Guzman, signaling support from top state officials for recognizing religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements.
The core dispute stems from a November ruling by Raleigh Circuit Judge Michael Froble, who held that schools must allow children who have a religious exemption to attend school.
The West Virginia Supreme Court suspended that ruling while it considers an appeal filed by the school board.
CHD cites conflicts of interest
In its amicus brief, CHD cites published studies, investigative reports and pharmaceutical grant disclosures that it believes demonstrate widespread conflicts of interest among medical associations involved in vaccine policy, guideline development and public health advocacy.
“Our amicus brief highlights the significant conflicts of interest the AAP and other organizations have with the pharmaceutical industry, not only with respect to vaccines but also many other pharmaceutical products,” said Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD.
“These conflicts highlight that many organizations like AAP are really trade organizations for their members, not organizations focused on children’s health as they claim.”
Among the examples highlighted:
- Pharmaceutical sponsorships and grants involving the AAP.
- Disclosed industry relationships involving Infectious Diseases Society of America leadership and guideline authors.
- Alleged failures to fully disclose financial ties in clinical guideline development.
The filing repeatedly argues that industry backing creates enticements for organizations to support expanded vaccine recommendations while discouraging inquiry into vaccine safety.
CHD challenges to vaccine safety ‘consensus’
CHD’s brief challenges 40-year-old scientific and legal assumptions that underlie vaccine mandates.
According to CHD, federal liability protections established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act removed market incentives for vaccine manufacturers to conduct robust, long-term safety studies by insulating them from civil liability, thereby depriving families of needed safeguards.
“CHD felt it was important to support this case because we firmly believe that protecting fundamental religious and parental rights is critical in each state,” Mack Rosenberg said. “We also believe that it is important to ask critical questions about the public health rationales used to strip families of their rights — those public health claims simply don’t hold water.”
CHD also argued that medical organizations and government agencies overstated scientific certainty surrounding vaccine safety while failing to acknowledge unresolved questions involving chronic childhood illness, autoimmune conditions and autism.
“Governmental entities, courts, and even private industry — often with inadequate or no analysis — rely upon the HAOs’ incomplete and misleading science to deny religious liberty, parental rights, and health freedom,” the filing states.
Mainstream medical organizations and federal health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, maintain that vaccines are safe and effective and that extensive research has found no causal link between vaccines and autism.
Multiple groups weigh in as West Virginia case expands
The legal battle taking place in West Virginia has attracted a growing number of amicus briefs from organizations on both sides of the vaccine exemption debate, underscoring the case’s potential national significance.
According to reporting by West Virginia Watch, legal organizations, public health groups, educators and civic organizations have all urged the state Supreme Court to overturn Raleigh County Circuit Judge Froble’s ruling allowing religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements.
Among the groups filing briefs opposing Froble’s ruling are the League of Women Voters of West Virginia, Education West Virginia, the West Virginia Hospital Association and several public health advocacy organizations, according to the news organization.
Some of the groups argue the debate extends beyond vaccine policy and raises broader questions about overreaching power and whether Morrisey exceeded his authority when he issued a 2025 executive order directing state health officials to recognize religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates.
The League of Women Voters argued in its filing that the case presents “a fundamental question of constitutional importance” concerning whether the executive branch can effectively alter state law without legislative approval, according to West Virginia Watch.
“From the League’s perspective, this is a simple matter of following the Constitution and separation of powers,” said Judy Ball, co-president of the League of Women Voters in a press release. “Nowhere does the Constitution give the Governor the authority to usurp the role of the Legislature and override its laws via executive order.”
Meanwhile, West Virginia Department of Education officials emphasized the importance of maintaining West Virginia’s longstanding vaccination requirements, which public health officials credit with helping the state avoid outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
Vaccine exemptions spark growing national debate
The West Virginia case arrives amid renewed national debate over vaccine mandates, informed consent and public trust in health institutions following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Medical freedom organizations have increasingly challenged school vaccine requirements in courts and legislatures across the country. Public health groups warn that declining vaccination rates could contribute to outbreaks of preventable diseases.
In recent months, courts and lawmakers across the country have grappled with challenges to state laws eliminating religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements.
In New York, CHD sued the state in December 2025, seeking to overturn the repeal of religious exemptions enacted in 2019. The lawsuit argues the law violates the constitutional rights of parents and children whose religious beliefs conflict with vaccine mandates.
That suit followed a major U.S. Supreme Court action in Miller v. McDonald, in which the court vacated a lower court ruling and ordered reconsideration of a challenge involving New York’s vaccine exemption policies.
Members of Congress have also entered the debate. Earlier this year, federal lawmakers urged the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate New York, California, Maine and Connecticut over their refusal to allow religious exemptions for school vaccine mandates.
In Connecticut, litigation continues after families challenged the state’s 2021 repeal of religious exemptions. The dispute escalated this spring when lawmakers approved legislation designed to shield the state from pending religious freedom claims tied to vaccine mandates.
California has also seen multiple lawsuits challenging Senate Bill 277, the law that eliminated personal and religious exemptions for school vaccinations. Advocacy groups and parents have argued that the measure unlawfully burdens religious exercise and parental rights.
Meanwhile, in Maine, legal challenges involving vaccine mandates and religious accommodations have continued since the state removed non-medical exemptions in 2019. The issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court during the COVID-19 era in litigation involving healthcare worker mandates and religious objections.
Additional litigation has emerged in New Jersey, where CHD challenged Rutgers University vaccine policies on behalf of students asserting religious and constitutional claims. Federal courts ultimately upheld the university’s policy.
Supporters of religious exemptions argue these cases represent a growing effort to restore constitutional protections for families who object to vaccination on religious grounds.
Public health officials and medical organizations counter that school vaccine requirements remain critical for preventing outbreaks of infectious disease and protecting vulnerable populations.
Related articles in The Defender
- West Virginia Supreme Court to Review Religious Exemptions Case
- Appeals Court Upholds West Virginia Vaccine Mandate, Rejects Religious Exemption for Online School
- Study Claiming No Link Between Aluminum in Vaccines and Autism Riddled with Flaws, Critics Say
- Florida Lawmaker Urges Trump to Protect Religious Exemptions
- Doctors Group Urges Supreme Court to Hear CHD Lawsuit Against Rutgers
