Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has largely brushed aside advice from the government’s own vaccine experts. This isn’t particularly surprising, as RFK describes himself as a vaccine-safety advocate who routinely questions the safety and efficacy of numerous vaccines. During the second Trump administration, RFK has taken several steps to narrow or downgrade vaccine recommendations.
However, while the HHS Secretary wields significant regulatory power, a federal district judge's ruling is a reminder that the Administrative Procedure Act doesn’t come with a “downvote” button.
RFK Uproots CDC
You could say the litigation began with a Tweet. Last May, Kennedy announced on X that he “couldn’t be more pleased that” the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women had been removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) official immunization schedules. And it might not surprise you that this all happened per RFK’s own directive, ordering CDC Acting Director Jim O’Neill to strip those populations from its routine COVID guidance.
A couple of weeks later, the Secretary fired all 17 members of the federal vaccine advisory panel. In its place, he installed a new roster that quickly voted to push manufacturers to remove thimerosal from flu shots, relegate COVID boosters for most people under 65 to “shared clinical decision‑making,” and make the hepatitis B birth dose optional for some newborns.
Medical Experts Sue
Several prominent medical organizations were not pleased. Within a month, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), joined by internists, public health associations, and infectious‑disease specialists, filed suit. They argued that Kennedy’s directive was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to follow set procedures and offer reasoned, evidence‑based explanations when they change major policies.
The plaintiffs also said the directive was not in accordance with law because it bypassed the government’s usual expert‑driven advisory process, clashed with CDC’s own data on COVID risks in pregnancy and childhood, and ignored federal statutes that tie insurance coverage and vaccine mandates to those expert recommendations.
On top of the legal theory, they alleged real‑world fallout: pregnant patients turned away at pharmacies, pediatricians pushed into uncompensated counseling and ethical conflicts, and public‑health departments losing access to discounted vaccine purchasing.
RFK Doubles Down
Despite the pushback, RFK kept vaccine policy in his crosshairs. By September, COVID vaccination for most adults under 65 had been reclassified as “shared clinical decision‑making” (SDCM), a status that drops it from the routine schedule and instead tells patients to hash it out with their doctors. This had been done without using the standard evidence frameworks used by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Earlier this year, Kennedy pressured the CDC’s acting director to issue a memo aligning the U.S. childhood schedule with Denmark — a country with far fewer vaccine recommendations due to its very different health system and disease profile. That memo scaled back six vaccines, either by taking them out of the “routine for everyone” category or by limiting them to smaller high‑risk groups — changes that reverberated through insurance coverage rules and vaccine requirements nationwide.
The litigants continued to keep RFK accountable for all this in federal court by steadily expanding their case to cover not just the original COVID directive, but also his revamped advisory committee, its 2025 votes, and the Denmark‑style schedule announced in January. They pressed for emergency relief, arguing that if ACIP’s new line‑up and the January memo stayed in place through yet another meeting cycle, the damage to coverage, clinical practice, and public trust would only deepen.
And this week, it finally paid off when the district court judge called a time-out.
A Hard Stop to Soft Science
On Monday, Judge Brian E. Murphy granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, using the court’s emergency powers to halt key changes while the case moves forward. The judge concluded that the challengers are likely to show that two big moves violated the Administrative Procedure Act: Kennedy’s wholesale reconstitution of ACIP and the January 2026 decision to revise the childhood vaccine schedule without running it through that expert committee.
The opinion recounts how Kennedy abruptly fired every ACIP member, then installed a new line‑up through a compressed, ad hoc process that departed from ACIP’s charter and Membership Balance Plan. The judge notes that “even under the most generous reading, only six appear to have any meaningful experience in vaccines — the very focus of ACIP.” For a committee Congress has woven into multiple statutes, that matters: in Judge Murphy’s view, this strongly suggests a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s requirement that advisory bodies be “fairly balanced” and not inappropriately influenced.
On the January childhood schedule memo that RFK directed O’Neill to issue, the judge found that it was issued “without sufficiently consulting ACIP” and that doing so flew in the face of several statutes. Because of that likely illegality, he held that the plaintiffs shouldn’t have to live with the new regime while they litigate. So, the judge used his power to put that memo on ice.
Turning the Clock Back (for Now)
Judge Murphy effectively snapped things back to the pre‑January status quo and sidelined most of Kennedy’s newly installed ACIP. He also puts the committee’s big 2025 votes (including the COVID downgrade and the hepatitis B birth‑dose change) on hold unless and until a properly constituted panel takes a fresh look.
But the judge was careful not to seize control of vaccine policy himself. He declined to permanently bar ACIP from meeting or to manage who sits on it. Instead, he effectively told HHS to go back and redo the work within the legal guardrails Congress set: use a balanced, expert committee, follow your own procedures, and provide a reasoned explanation.
The HHS is appealing the ruling. Unless the decision is overturned, RFK will not be able to effect all the big changes he aims for, at least not without taking a more traditional path than posting on social media.
Related Resources:
- Medical Groups Sue RFK Over 'Reckless' Vaccine Policy (FindLaw’s Courtside)
- Public School Vaccination Requirements by State (FindLaw’s Learn About the Law)
- Florida’s Fight Over HIV Drug Cuts Lands in Court (FindLaw’s Courtside)
