BY MIRABEL ODETA
A federal judge has blocked major parts of an effort by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reshape national vaccine policy, dealing a significant setback to proposed changes that included reducing the number of routine childhood immunizations and restructuring a key federal advisory panel.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled in favor of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups, who argued that federal health agencies acted unlawfully in implementing Kennedy’s agenda. These groups warned that the changes could lower vaccination rates and pose risks to public health.
The ruling immediately halted plans by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to hold a scheduled meeting, after Murphy determined that the panel had not been lawfully reconstituted. He also barred Kennedy’s 13 appointees from continuing to serve on the committee.
The decision represents a major obstacle for Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic appointed by President Donald Trump to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration is expected to challenge the ruling on appeal.
In his opinion, Murphy emphasized that U.S. vaccine policy has historically been grounded in scientific methods and established legal procedures aimed at reducing and eradicating disease. He stated that under Kennedy’s leadership, those standards had been disregarded, undermining the credibility of federal health actions.
The judge, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, invalidated prior decisions made by the restructured advisory panel, including votes to scale back recommendations for certain vaccines. These included immunizations for diseases such as hepatitis B in newborns and broader guidance on COVID-19 vaccines.
Murphy also found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had acted beyond its authority by changing the recommended childhood vaccination schedule earlier in the year without consulting the advisory committee, which plays a central role in shaping national vaccine guidelines and insurance coverage policies.
A key issue in the case was the composition of the advisory panel. Kennedy had removed all 17 previous members and replaced them with new appointees. According to the ruling, the new panel failed to meet legal requirements for balance and expertise. Murphy noted that only a minority of current members appeared to have significant experience in vaccines, despite the panel’s mandate to include qualified experts.
The judge concluded that a committee lacking sufficient scientific expertise could not provide balanced or credible recommendations, as required under federal law. As a result, earlier policy changes approved by the panel were also deemed invalid.
Supporters of the lawsuit welcomed the decision as a victory for science and public health. Legal representatives for the plaintiffs argued that the ruling restores integrity to the nation’s vaccine policy framework.
The White House did not immediately comment on the decision. A spokesperson for the health department said officials expect the ruling to be overturned and defended the administration’s authority to revisit vaccine policy, particularly in response to declining public trust following the pandemic.
The legal challenge focused in part on actions taken in January, when the CDC reduced the number of routinely recommended childhood vaccines and downgraded guidance for several illnesses, including rotavirus, influenza, and hepatitis A.
Groups aligned with Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement criticized the ruling, calling it an example of judicial overreach. Organizations such as Children’s Health Defense argued that the proposed changes were reasonable and should not be controversial.
Meanwhile, public health experts praised the court’s intervention. Some noted that the advisory committee had lost credibility under its new structure, even though its recommendations still carried legal and practical influence.
The uncertainty surrounding U.S. vaccine policy has also affected pharmaceutical companies. Major vaccine producers—including Pfizer, Moderna, Merck & Co., Sanofi, and GSK—have been closely monitoring the situation as policy changes could impact demand and public confidence.
Although Murphy sided largely with the plaintiffs, he declined to block a separate directive issued in May that removed recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children.
In the broader context, pediatricians across the country report growing skepticism among parents toward vaccines and medical guidance. At the same time, several states are considering changes that could loosen vaccine requirements for school attendance, signaling a wider shift in the national conversation around immunization policy.
Original article
Comments