Federal Court Blocks HHS Vaccine Policy Changes and ACIP Appointments
Abstract
A federal judge has blocked key actions taken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, the appointment of new members to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and vaccine recommendations issued by that committee. These actions are stayed pending trial, meaning they are not in effect and should not be relied upon for policy or practice decisions. The Court found it is likely these actions violated federal law because they did not follow required scientific and procedural processes, including the use of appropriately qualified expert advisors. The ruling restores the prior framework for vaccine recommendations while the case proceeds.
On March 16, 2026, in the matter American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. et al., 25-11916-BEM, the Federal Court of the District of Massachusetts temporarily suspends (through a stay) a January 2026 memorandum of the CDC that would reduce the number of diseases from which children are protected through the recommended childhood vaccine schedule. The Court also suspended (stay) temporarily the appointment of thirteen members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”), the advisory committee responsible for making vaccine recommendations to the CDC.
This decision was rendered in the course of a court proceeding instituted by the American Academy of Pediatrics (the “Plaintiff”) against the Department of Health and Human Services (Robert Kennedy Jr. et al.), initially instituted in response to an order issued by Robert Kennedy Jr. to stop recommending the Covid vaccine for pregnant women.
The Plaintiff was requesting that the court grant preliminary injunctive relief regarding the adoption of the January 2026 vaccine memorandum and the appointment of the agency committee members. In order for a preliminary injunction to be granted, the requesting party has to show (i) a likelihood of success on the merits, (ii) irreparable harm suffered by the requesting party and (iii) balance of equities to determine if the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest.
Here, the Court found that all three criteria were met, but decided that a stay would be more appropriate than a preliminary injunction. With regard to a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court found that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed because the January 2026 Memorandum was not adopted following consultation with ACIP, as required by Congress, and because the new ACIP appointments did not include persons with demonstrated professional or personal qualifications and experience relevant to the functions and tasks to be performed by the committee. The Court found that failure to grant preliminary relief would result in irreparable harm, as the physicians, members of the Plaintiff, would suffer monetary harm that would be irreparable, as the sovereign immunity of the government would prevent these physicians from eventually seeking compensation from the government. Finally, the Court found that preliminary relief, when balancing equities, would be in the public interest because there is a substantial risk to public health absent preliminary relief.
In the words of the Court, “[F]or our public health, Congress and the Executive have built—over decades—an apparatus that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government. One extraordinary product of that apparatus has been the eradication and reduction of certain communicable diseases through the development and use of vaccines.”
As such, preliminary relief, a stay, was granted. However, the merits of the case are yet to be decided.
Therefore, monitoring of the proceedings is encouraged in order to observe how the Court will further decide on the merits.
