Login
A new federal court filing just raised the stakes in a contentious, high-profile vaccine lawsuit.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and a group of parents and physicians are seeking to halt enforcement of a March 16 preliminary injunction that suspended membership changes to a key federal vaccine panel and blocked recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) schedule for routine vaccine recommendations.
In a motion filed today in a federal court in Boston, CHD argued that because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rewrote the rules governing the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) after the court granted the injunction, the original basis for the injunction no longer exists.
On April 1, HHS renewed ACIP’s charter with some key changes.
The updated charter significantly expands the criteria for eligibility to serve on the committee to include expertise in data science, health economics, toxicology and vaccine injury recovery.
The new charter also redefines the panel’s mission to include reviewing the cumulative effect of childhood vaccines, reassessing safety gaps and examining individualized responses to vaccines, and it includes the addition of four new liaison organizations.
The March injunction stayed the appointment of the 13 new ACIP members appointed under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and invalidated their recommendations, largely on the grounds that many of them lacked relevant expertise that would qualify them to serve on the committee.
“Under the renewed charter, every ACIP member this court found unqualified or arguably qualified satisfies at least one listed expertise category,” the motion states.
The March injunction ruled that the CDC could not change vaccine recommendations without input from a properly constituted ACIP. But the new filing argues that the government has now redefined what “properly constituted” means.
If, following the new charter, the ACIP members are all qualified to serve, and the committee has explicit direction to investigate issues tied to the schedule, then the panel should remain intact and its recommendations should stand, the challengers argue.
AAP lawsuit behind preliminary injunction
The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed in July 2025 by the American Academy of Pediatrics and several other medical groups.
The groups sued Kennedy and HHS over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. They amended their lawsuit several times in response to new HHS and CDC policies and recommendations.
In March, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction that halted ACIP meetings, froze the 13 new ACIP appointments, and blocked recent changes to the U.S. childhood immunization schedule — effectively preventing the federal government from implementing its revised vaccine policy.
The parents, physicians and CHD were not party to the original lawsuit. However, in February, they sought to intervene, asking to join HHS as defendants on behalf of people injured or killed by vaccines.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy denied that request, which is now on appeal, awaiting a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.
The new filing submitted today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts asks the court to stay its March 16 preliminary injunction while an appeal of the injunction is pending before the 1st Circuit.
HHS has not yet appealed Judge Murphy’s ruling. Rick Jaffe, the attorney who filed today’s motion told The Defender, “The government hasn’t decided whether to fight this. Someone has to try.”
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. 
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
A narrow window for case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court
The new motion arrives at a critical moment. The 1st Circuit has already signaled that challengers must first seek relief from the District Court before pursuing their appeal.
With the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) current term ending in late June, there is a narrow window for the case to reach the nation’s highest court. The challengers asked the 1st Circuit to expedite a hearing on their motion so the appeal can be considered by SCOTUS.
Without a stay, the challengers warn, the injunction will continue to shape national vaccine policy throughout the appeals process.
The District Court must now decide whether to pause its own order in light of the government’s policy shift or allow the injunction to stand while the legal battle plays out.
Related articles in The Defender
- Exclusive: ‘Unqualified’ Judge to Blame for ‘Highly Politicized’ Ruling Against RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Advisers
- Children’s Health Defense Will Appeal Rulings in High-Profile Vaccine Lawsuit
- Breaking: Federal Court Blocks ACIP Meeting, Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
- Federal Judge Weighs AAP Emergency Motion to Block Vaccine Policy Overhaul
- Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Hits AAP With RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Claims
- AAP, Other Medical Groups Want Court to Block New CDC Vaccine Schedule
- Breaking: HHS Makes Sweeping Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
