Login
A lawsuit filed by 15 states seeking to overturn recent revisions to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule may proceed, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
However, the judge ruled against the states in their attempt to overturn U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new appointments to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy.
Tuesday’s ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in February by the attorneys general of 14 states and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro against Kennedy, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other federal health agencies and officials. Trump administration attorneys had asked the court to dismiss the suit.
Legal experts told The Defender the ruling could indirectly affect an ongoing similar lawsuit filed last year by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) against Kennedy and HHS, seeking some of the same outcomes.
The 15 states are asking the court to nullify vaccine policy changes, including the decision by HHS to reduce the number of diseases covered by the childhood vaccination schedule from 17 to 11, and the CDC’s decision to no longer recommend a birth dose of the hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine.
In a five-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said the states have standing to challenge changes to the vaccine schedule because they “plausibly alleged that those decisions will likely increase the cost of operating state healthcare programs and impose administrative burdens associated with adjusting state laws.”
Chhabria also agreed with the states that replacing universal federal vaccine recommendations with “shared clinical decision-making” between physicians and caregivers may reduce vaccine uptake and lead to a higher risk of disease outbreaks.
However, in granting the federal government’s motion to dismiss the states’ effort to vacate Kennedy’s appointees to ACIP, Chhabria wrote:
“Unlike the CDC’s decisions, which directly alter the federal legal landscape against which the States must regulate, the ACIP recommendations at issue do not impact the States by operation of federal law until they are adopted by the CDC.”
Ruling could affect AAP lawsuit challenging RFK Jr.’s vaccine policies
Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said Tuesday’s ruling “addresses an issue that is often dealt with early in litigation, whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have what is called ‘standing’ — whether they are an appropriate party to bring a case against the defendant or defendants.”
“The decision does not make any final rulings on the substantive claims. However, it limits which claims may go forward,” Mack Rosenberg said.
Attorney Rick Jaffe, who is not involved with this case, said the decision is a routine, procedural ruling on standing and does not rule on the merits of the case.
“Nothing in these five pages says the schedule changes are unlawful, and nothing says they are lawful,” he said.
However, Jaffe suggested the ruling may indirectly impact the AAP’s lawsuit alleging that Kennedy’s changes to federal COVID-19 vaccine recommendations are “baseless and uninformed” and place pregnant women and children at “grave and immediate risk.”
In subsequent amendments to its complaint, the AAP sought to block the CDC’s new childhood vaccination schedule and Kennedy’s ACIP appointees.
In March, a federal court ruled against Kennedy and HHS in the AAP lawsuit, freezing ACIP’s operations and several of Kennedy’s vaccine-related policies. An appeal remains pending. CHD has also sought to intervene in the AAP case.
CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender in February that the claims the 15 states made in their lawsuit against Kennedy and HHS are “essentially the same” as those made by AAP.
According to Jaffe, Tuesday’s ruling by Chhabria did not uphold Kennedy’s ACIP appointments — but did not vacate them either.
“He held that these plaintiffs have no business challenging them, which is a different thing and, in some ways, a better outcome for the secretary,” Jaffe said. “His holding was that the states never explained how vacating the appointments would produce different recommendations, or how different recommendations would produce different policy.”
Jaffe said Tuesday’s ruling came in a “different circuit” with “different plaintiffs and a different procedural posture” and “technically binds no court.” However, he said the failure of some of the states’ arguments against Kennedy and HHS may still influence the pending AAP lawsuit.
“It should help them, since the states have a much better standing argument than AAP has. I think it might help the 1st Circuit dismiss the AAP case,” Jaffe said. Oral arguments are scheduled for next month.
Tuesday’s ruling gave the states 21 days to file an amended complaint addressing the portions of the case that were dismissed, but in his decision, Chhabria wrote that the court is “skeptical” that the states will be able to successfully assert standing even after revising their complaint.
“The strongest state-standing case anyone has assembled against Kennedy’s childhood schedule still failed on the ACIP appointments, in front of a judge appointed by President [Barack] Obama, with leave to amend and an express statement that he doubts it can be fixed,” Jaffe said.
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.
Ruling finds that states can’t sue ACIP after linking their vaccine policies to ACIP recommendations
According to Jaffe, another “consequential” aspect of Chhabria’s ruling is the recognition that ACIP recommendations are not binding on states or any other entity until the CDC formally adopts them.
Jaffe said Chhabria’s ruling turned this principle, which was generally accepted, “into a standing rule.”
“States that wrote ACIP directly into their own statutes cannot sue over what ACIP does, because that injury is self-inflicted,” Jaffe said. “They did that drafting years ago to make their laws update automatically. It now works as a bar to the courthouse, and it will work that way no matter who is running HHS.”
ACIP’s operations have remained frozen following March’s ruling while an appeal remains pending. In April, federal health officials revised ACIP’s charter, broadening membership criteria and increasing focus on vaccine safety and injury.
Over the past year, some states have established their own vaccine schedules, aligned with the CDC’s previous recommendations, not the newer changes made under the Trump administration.
In January, CHD and five other plaintiffs sued AAP under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), accusing the group of running a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.
Related articles in The Defender
- ‘Publicity Stunt Dressed Up as a Lawsuit’: 15 States Sue HHS Over New Vaccine Guidance
- Breaking: Federal Court Blocks ACIP Meeting, Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
- Federal Government Appeals Ruling in AAP Lawsuit that Struck Down RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Policies
- Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Hits AAP With RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Claims
- Breaking: HHS Makes Sweeping Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
- RFK Jr. Hit With Lawsuit Over Changes to COVID Vaccine Policies for Kids, Pregnant Women
