Login
A federal judge last week heard arguments by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical groups seeking to block recent changes to the childhood vaccine schedule and other actions taken by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The AAP and a coalition of public health and medical groups are suing Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over a series of vaccine policy changes the groups allege were made unlawfully.
Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 13 heard the groups’ motion for an injunction to reverse the changes and cancel a federal vaccine advisory panel meeting scheduled for later this month.
The agenda for the February meeting has not yet been posted. Since the last meeting, HHS has added two new OB-GYNs to the panel’s roster.
Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccinologist, scientist, and biochemist known for his early contributions to mRNA vaccine technology, told The Defender the lawsuit was a frivolous attempt to interfere with HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“This is yet another example of the AAP politicizing public health, and represents a classic example of weaponized lawfare in support of both a medical guild and the vaccine industry interests that supports it,” he said.
The government argued in its opposition memorandum that HHS has the legal power to implement the policies it has enacted, and that the AAP filed the lawsuit because they disagreed with HHS’ decisions — not because the decisions were made illegally.
The outcome of the judge’s ruling on the temporary injunction could have major implications for U.S. vaccine policy.
Murphy declined to rule on the injunction from the bench. Instead, he gave the federal government until 5 p.m. on Wednesday to respond to witness declarations the AAP submitted just before the hearing.
Before adjourning, Murphy said the strong arguments on both sides “made the decision hard.”
Plaintiffs expanded lawsuit multiple times
The Feb. 13 hearing was the latest development in a lawsuit AAP and several other medical groups filed against Kennedy, HHS, and other public health officials and agencies in July 2025.
The AAP initially sued defendants over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. Since then, the groups amended their complaint several times to challenge new actions made by HHS.
In November 2025, the AAP asked the court to disband the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Last year, Kennedy removed former ACIP members, citing financial conflicts of interest and replaced them. The AAP asked that ACIP be rebuilt under court supervision.
On Jan. 19, the groups asked to submit another amended complaint, adding three items to the existing complaint, which Murphy allowed during last week’s hearing.
The new complaint challenges Kennedy’s decision to disband and reconstitute ACIP. It also challenges ACIP’s votes to change the recommendations for the hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccines and to remove thimerosal from flu vaccines.
It also challenges changes Kennedy made to the childhood vaccine schedule in January.
In late January, the AAP announced that it will continue to advise routine childhood immunization against 18 diseases rather than follow the new CDC recommendations.
The government sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that none of the plaintiffs faced direct harm and they therefore had no right to sue. Murphy ruled in January that the case could proceed.
AAP, HHS clash over process and policy
At last week’s hearing, attorneys for the AAP argued that the government had illegally bypassed the normal advisory process when it changed the childhood vaccine schedule. “This is a clear and present danger to public health,” plaintiffs’ attorney James Oh said.
According to the AAP, the vaccine recommendation changes and other decisions by HHS since Kennedy took office in February 2025 violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies make policy.
In a memo, the AAP and its co-plaintiffs wrote that the changes Kennedy made were “arbitrary and capricious actions” that “sow confusion and undermine public health.”
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers for HHS argued that the CDC’s vaccine schedule is advisory, not binding. Decisions about vaccine requirements are made at the state level. Currently, 19 states have indicated they won’t incorporate the CDC’s new recommendations.
HHS characterized the changes as a modest restructuring of the schedule, rather than the removal of vaccines. No vaccines were moved to a “not recommended” category, and healthcare coverage remained intact.
The scope of the lawsuit itself was a flashpoint in last week’s courtroom debate. DOJ attorney Isaac Belfer said the case was “metastasizing.” He argued that if it continued to expand to cover any change to vaccine policy, it would become a “moving target” that would be nearly impossible to resolve.
Belfer also pushed back on what he called the plaintiffs’ framing of the dispute as a fight between pro- and anti-vaccine forces. Both sides believe in vaccines, he argued — they simply have different approaches to vaccine policy. He said the government’s goal is to restore public trust in vaccines and increase uptake, not to undermine them.
He said HHS made the changes because trust in public health institutions plummeted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and childhood vaccination rates dropped as a result.
By comparing U.S. recommendations to those of peer countries that maintain high vaccination rates without mandates, HHS identified a set of “consensus” vaccines — those recommended across the board in other developed nations. The agency preserved universal recommendations for those vaccines and moved others to shared clinical decision-making.
The government argued this was a tailored, evidence-informed approach to vaccine policy rather than an anti-vaccine one.
Belfer also argued that the case raised fundamental questions about the separation of powers. Under the U.S. Constitution, elected and appointed officials in the executive branch have the authority to set policy, he said. Courts cannot substitute their own judgment for an agency’s when the agency has acted reasonably.
The government welcomes spirited debate over vaccine policy, Belfer said.
The DOJ accused the AAP of trying to use the courts to silence views it disagreed with by labeling them “misinformation.”
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.
The fight over ACIP
Kennedy’s reconstitution of ACIP, the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, took center stage during last week’s hearing.
The AAP lawsuit accuses Kennedy of replacing former ACIP members with vaccine skeptics, chosen because their views aligned with Kennedy’s. According to the lawsuit, the new panel does not comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires fair balance and the avoidance of inappropriate influence.
Lawyers for HHS argued that when Congress required “balance” for ACIP membership, it meant balance of employment status and professional background — not balance of views on vaccination.
The AAP also objected to how ACIP members were vetted.
The night before the Feb. 13 hearing, the AAP filed a declaration by Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., a doctor at the National Center for Health Research. Zuckerman said she was vetted by a representative of the Siri & Glimstad law firm as a potential ACIP member, but she was not selected.
The declaration alleged that the attorney pressed her to agree that childhood vaccination decisions should be made solely between parents and doctors, and that she refused.
AAP lawyer Richard Henry Hughes IV — a former Moderna executive — told reporters after the hearing that ACIP had become a platform for “junk science,” Bloomberg reported.
Related articles in The Defender
- AAP, Other Medical Groups Want Court to Block New CDC Vaccine Schedule
- Federal Judge Clears Path for AAP to Sue RFK Jr. Over Vaccine Policy Changes
- HHS Just Gave Parents More Say in Their Kids’ Vaccines — And the Vaccine Establishment Is Running Scared
- Leading Pediatrician Group Defies CDC, Tells Parents to Get COVID Shots for Infants, Kids
- AAP Ratchets Up Complaints Against RFK Jr.’s CDC Vaccine Panel in Updated Lawsuit
- Breaking: HHS Makes Sweeping Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
- Lawyer Leading Lawsuit Against RFK Jr. Over COVID Vaccines Used to Work for Moderna
