Pediatric and public health groups are seeking a court order to block the CDC’s revised childhood vaccine schedule and suspend the next meeting of federal vaccine advisers, alleging flawed process and the spread of misinformation.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A coalition of major medical associations has asked a federal judge to block the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s newly revised childhood vaccine schedule and to halt the agency’s next meeting of vaccine advisers, arguing that recent changes reflect non-scientific decision-making and risk spreading misinformation.
The effort, detailed in a recent court filing reported by Just the News, comes as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) prepares for its next scheduled meeting in late February. The plaintiffs include the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Public Health Association, the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and their Massachusetts affiliates.
The associations are challenging the CDC’s revised childhood immunization schedule, which followed changes directed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as the restructuring of ACIP. They argue that the changes depart from established scientific norms and should be suspended while litigation proceeds.
Federal attorneys objected to portions of the proposed relief, particularly requests related to administrative records, contending that the associations’ demands violate legal procedure. Those objections were outlined in a joint status report submitted Friday by the plaintiffs and defendants, which include Kennedy, CDC acting Director Jim O’Neill, and their agencies.
The filing followed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s Jan. 6 decision declining to dismiss the lawsuit’s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Murphy granted standing to AAP on the basis that it had been forced to expend significant time and resources counseling its 67,000 members following changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and the replacement of CDC advisers.
Murphy acknowledged that the CDC’s shift from universal COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children to a “shared clinical decision-making” framework could impose financial and operational costs on pediatricians. Those costs, the plaintiffs allege, include uncompensated counseling time, unused vaccine inventory due to reduced uptake, and fewer patient visits per day.
“For standing purposes, it was certainly predictable that the changes in recommendations would and will cause insurers to change their billing for the COVID vaccine,” Murphy wrote, distinguishing the case from a recent Supreme Court ruling that denied standing to physicians challenging federal abortion pill regulations.
Murphy also cited what he described as a “credible threat” that physicians could face liability under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act if they deviate from the CDC schedule, referencing a statement by Kennedy posted on X. He compared that situation to the Supreme Court’s recognition of standing in a case involving website designer Lorie Smith.
Children’s Health Defense general counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg criticized the ruling, telling the organization’s publication that Murphy’s reasoning “tacitly admits that, in many pediatric practices,” families are not being given informed consent, pointing to the judge’s emphasis on the time burden of vaccine discussions.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has previously faced scrutiny over its financial ties to vaccine manufacturers. Those connections were documented by The Epoch Times last year, according to an archived report here, after AAP issued COVID-19 vaccine recommendations that differed from the CDC’s guidance at the time. Kennedy has publicly cited those donor relationships and called for fuller disclosure.
AAP recently prevailed in a separate case when Judge Beryl Howell ordered HHS to restore $12 million in federal grants to the organization, concluding the agency likely acted with a retaliatory motive. That ruling is detailed here.
Murphy himself has drawn criticism for rulings that federal officials say conflict with Supreme Court precedent. He has been identified as an “activist judge” in coverage here and has previously blocked elements of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, including fast-track deportations and removals to third countries. Although the Supreme Court later lifted one of his nationwide injunctions, Murphy stated it did not apply to aspects of his earlier rulings, prompting federal officials to denounce what they called his “unprecedented defiance,” as reported by Reuters here.
Even Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan criticized Murphy’s approach in a concurring opinion, writing, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”
In the latest filing, the medical associations said they intend to submit a fourth amended complaint challenging the CDC’s revised schedule and a Jan. 5 decision memo, and to seek an injunction blocking ACIP’s next meeting scheduled for Feb. 25–26. They argue that three prior ACIP meetings since the panel’s reconstitution featured repeated instances of misinformation and that allowing another meeting would harm the public.
The federal government countered that the January 5 action is not part of the current complaint and therefore outside the scope of required document production, noting that the CDC’s decision memo and scientific assessment are already public. Officials also argued that demanding an administrative record for a meeting that has not yet occurred is impractical.
The dispute now moves toward a potential February hearing, as the court considers whether to allow the amended complaint and whether to grant the requested injunctions that could pause both the revised vaccine schedule and the work of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.
Original article
Comments