U.S. District Court judge Brian E. Murphy issued a preliminary injunction on March 16 halting major changes to federal immunization policy implemented earlier this year by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The ruling temporarily invalidates the January 2026 federal immunization schedule overhaul, the appointments of 13 new members to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made between June 2025 and January 2026, and all votes cast by that reconstituted ACIP.
The injunction follows a lawsuit brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical organizations challenging the legality of HHS actions that bypassed established scientific review and federal procedures. In its decision, the court signaled that Kennedy’s actions were likely unlawful, citing procedural violations and failures to adhere to longstanding federal advisory committee requirements.
Scientific Expertise Provided Through Amicus Brief
AAI together with America’s Physician Groups (APG), submitted an amicus brief last month in support of the plaintiffs, offering input and scientific expertise to aid the court’s consideration of the case. In his decision, Judge Murphy cited the AAI-led brief. AAI’s filing detailed how the biased and improperly vetted ACIP membership—and the accelerated and scientifically unjustified immunization schedule changes—posed significant risks to evidence-based vaccine policy, public trust, and scientific integrity.
The lawsuit and subsequent AAI amicus brief were prompted by a series of unprecedented moves by HHS, including terminating all 17 members of the ACIP and replacing them with individuals who, in many cases, lacked expertise in immunology and vaccinology and demonstrated clear anti-vaccine views, and issuing sweeping changes to federal vaccine recommendations without the federally mandated public and scientific review processes.
By filing the brief, AAI reinforced its longstanding commitment to ensuring that federal immunization policy remains grounded in rigorous science and independent expert evaluation.
Why This Matters
AAI’s involvement in this case reflects the growing importance of working with all three branches of government to safeguard evidence-based policymaking. By submitting expert analysis to the court, AAI provided clarity on the scientific and public health implications of the Administration’s actions—expertise the judge explicitly considered.
This outcome further demonstrates that organizations like AAI can meaningfully influence federal decision-making, helping to ensure that policy remains aligned with credible, robust scientific data, established procedural norms, and public health knowledge that protects communities from vaccine-preventable diseases.
