A federal appeals court pressed attorneys Tuesday over whether a lower-court order blocking 13 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel went too far, with one judge questioning what injury justified such “intrusive relief.”
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday questioned whether a Massachusetts judge exceeded the appropriate scope of judicial relief when he blocked most of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointments to the federal panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines.
During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, one judge repeatedly pressed lawyers representing medical organizations challenging Kennedy’s appointments to identify the specific harm that justified preventing the advisers from serving.
“What is the harm that needs to be redressed, or that would justify this kind of intrusive relief?” the judge asked during the Oct. 6 hearing, according to Reuters.
The Trump administration is asking the appeals court to stay the portion of U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s March 16 order that suspended the appointments of 13 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP.
The committee has not met since Murphy’s ruling, and scheduled meetings have been canceled while the litigation continues.
“We’re asking the court to vacate the order on the appointments so that the secretary can reconstitute the committee and get it back to work,” Justice Department attorney Matthew Zorn told the First Circuit panel Tuesday.
Zorn argued that the plaintiffs — including the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and public-health organizations — would not suffer a legally cognizable injury simply because Kennedy’s appointees were permitted to serve.
He also argued that appointments to an advisory committee are not themselves final agency actions subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Murphy’s March order went considerably beyond the appointments issue.
The judge stayed a January 2026 memorandum that revised the federal childhood immunization schedule, suspended the appointments of 13 ACIP members selected in June 2025, September 2025 and January 2026, and stayed all votes taken by the reconstituted committee.
Murphy concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their argument that the committee violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, which requires federal advisory panels to be fairly balanced and their members to be appropriately qualified.
Kennedy had removed all 17 previous ACIP members in June 2025, saying the panel suffered from conflicts of interest and that a complete overhaul was necessary to restore public confidence.
He subsequently appointed new members, including physician and mRNA vaccine technology pioneer Dr. Robert Malone and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Retsef Levi.
Murphy determined that 13 of Kennedy’s selections were likely appointed through a process that failed to satisfy federal requirements governing advisory committees.
The American Public Health Association said the ruling also blocked the administration’s January overhaul of the childhood vaccination schedule, reversed changes affecting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and stayed changes involving the hepatitis B vaccine.
The administration is currently appealing the portion of the ruling dealing with ACIP appointments rather than every component of Murphy’s order.
Zorn told the First Circuit that the practical effect of the ruling has been to disable the committee.
“The practical matter of this case is, the secretary wants to get the ACIP back to work, and we’re being told that if he reconstitutes any committee, it’s going to be right back in court,” Zorn said.
Attorney Andrew Pincus, representing the medical organizations, defended Murphy’s ruling as the “least intrusive relief possible.”
Pincus argued that Kennedy remained free under the order to appoint a lawfully constituted committee, including potentially reappointing some of the same individuals along with new members.
“If that constellation of people was lawful, his order would not prohibit that ACIP from going forward,” Pincus said.
The appeals judges appeared particularly interested in whether the plaintiffs could establish a concrete injury stemming merely from the makeup of ACIP.
Pincus said the organizations would be harmed because federal officials had removed several of them from their longstanding roles as liaison organizations to the committee, limiting their ability to participate in ACIP deliberations.
One judge tested that argument by asking whether the organizations would still be injured if the currently blocked committee met and adopted vaccine recommendations that the plaintiffs themselves supported.
Pincus said they would.
He argued that recommendations produced by a committee lacking the required balance of expertise and viewpoints would lack legitimacy regardless of whether the plaintiffs agreed with the eventual policy result.
The government disputes that reasoning.
It argues that objections to how an advisory committee is constituted do not justify an order preventing presidential administration officials from carrying out appointments before any final agency action has occurred.
The dispute also comes against the backdrop of a recent Supreme Court ruling involving a different federal health advisory body.
In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2025 that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior federal officers who may constitutionally be appointed by the secretary of Health and Human Services.
The administration has cited that ruling in arguing that Kennedy possesses broad authority over appointments to federal health advisory bodies.
The Braidwood decision did not directly decide the separate FACA questions at issue in the ACIP litigation, however.
Murphy’s ruling focused heavily on whether the reconstituted vaccine committee complied with statutory requirements that advisory committees be appropriately balanced and qualified.
His written order said a stay of the appointments was a less drastic remedy than a broader injunction and concluded that the committee’s previous votes should also be suspended because the court had found that ACIP likely violated federal law.
The legal battle grew out of Kennedy’s sweeping restructuring of federal vaccine policy after becoming health secretary.
In June 2025, Kennedy dismissed every member of ACIP, arguing that conflicts of interest had undermined public trust in the panel.
He then installed a new group of advisers, several of whom had previously criticized federal vaccine policies or questioned aspects of vaccine safety and public-health guidance.
The administration described the new membership as bringing greater transparency, independent judgment and a wider range of scientific viewpoints to the committee.
Critics, including major physician organizations, argued that some of the replacements lacked the traditional expertise expected of ACIP members and that the committee had become insufficiently balanced.
The dispute intensified after the reconstituted panel approved changes to federal vaccine recommendations and the administration later announced a significant revision to the childhood immunization schedule.
Murphy temporarily blocked those changes while the lawsuit moves forward.
ACIP plays an influential role in federal health policy because its recommendations affect CDC guidance, insurance coverage requirements and access to vaccines through programs serving children and other patients.
The First Circuit did not immediately rule Tuesday on the government’s request.
Its decision on whether to stay Murphy’s order could determine whether Kennedy is able to restore ACIP and resume meetings while the underlying lawsuit proceeds.
For now, the central appellate question is narrower than the wider political and scientific dispute over vaccine policy: whether the plaintiffs demonstrated enough concrete harm to justify a federal judge stopping the secretary of Health and Human Services from seating his chosen advisers before the legality of those appointments has been finally resolved.
Original article
Comments