A Boston federal judge on Monday halted significant components of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s initiative to alter U.S. vaccine policy, asserting that the Trump administration had likely breached the law.
In a preliminary ruling, Judge Brian E. Murphy determined that Kennedy’s restructuring of a crucial vaccine advisory panel and modifications to the childhood vaccine schedule in January were probably unlawful. He specifically found that these policy changes violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines the procedures federal agencies must follow when implementing policy changes.
This decision, while not final, poses a setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to revamp the country’s vaccine policies, which are still under development. The court’s final decision and the administration’s reaction to the ruling could have wide-ranging consequences for public health in the United States.
The upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), originally set for this week, has been postponed due to the ruling.
Murphy expressed that there is a traditional, scientifically based method, codified into law, for making these decisions. He criticized the government for disregarding these methods, thereby compromising the integrity of its actions. “The Government bypassed ACIP to change the immunization schedules, which is both a technical, procedural failure itself and a strong indication of something more fundamentally problematic: an abandonment of the technical knowledge and expertise embodied by that committee,” Murphy wrote in his 45-page decision.
Richard Hughes IV, representing the plaintiffs, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, hailed the ruling as a “tremendous victory for science, for public health, and for the rule of law.” He told STAT, “We prevailed in every way we could.”
The government plans to appeal the ruling. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon commented, “HHS looks forward to this judge’s decision being overturned just like his other attempts to keep the Trump administration from governing.”
The current ACIP includes individuals who align with Kennedy’s vaccine criticism. Kennedy had dismissed the entire previous panel in June, claiming it was a step toward restoring vaccine confidence.
Noel Brewer, previously part of the committee, welcomed the ruling, stating, “It’s high time that someone brought the runaway ACIP to heel. It’s been doing damage to people in the United States, as well as other countries that follow the U.S.’s lead. This is a good day for public health.”
Murphy evaluated the qualifications of the newly appointed committee members, finding that they often lacked the necessary expertise to guide federal vaccination policy effectively. The court noted a lack of evidence showing the new members had any significant vaccine-related experience. Although open to being persuaded of their qualifications, the judge remarked that the defendants did not provide sufficient information for the court to assess their expertise.
Robert Malone, the committee’s deputy chair, disagreed with the court’s assessment that his public record didn’t demonstrate the necessary experience to lead the group. In an online post, Malone argued the finding was “factually incorrect,” suggesting the court either did not fully review his experience or portrayed it in an unfavorable light.
The judge also criticized the informal approach the Trump administration took in restructuring the committee, noting that appointing new members previously involved a lengthy process with extensive candidate outreach. Murphy observed the panel’s lack of expertise might hinder finding new members who meet both the technical requirements and align with Kennedy’s policy goals. Brian Dean Abramson, a vaccine law professor, commented that finding someone with genuine expertise in vaccinology and immunology who supports the current HHS administration’s vaccine direction is nearly impossible.
Kennedy’s ACIP was more a public relations initiative than a genuine effort to gain expertise in advising the public on vaccination practices, Abramson added. Additionally, there are ongoing questions about rebuilding trust with professional societies and states, as 28 states have already altered their guidance to not follow HHS or ACIP’s recommendations.
The ACIP meeting, initially planned for Wednesday and Thursday, had all voting activities blocked by the court for the current committee configuration. Although no agenda has been published, the Federal Register notice suggested potential votes on Covid-19 vaccine injuries and long Covid issues, as well as on the methodology for recommendations.
The government argued that the changes in question were not “final agency actions” and should not be reviewed by the court. However, Murphy stated that the changes have legal consequences and are thus subject to legal challenges. The vaccine schedule affects the liability of health care providers and which vaccines federal programs cover.
In his decision, Murphy referenced a February hearing exchange where he questioned whether the Department of Justice would consider it reviewable if Kennedy advocated for Americans to attend measles exposure events. DOJ attorney Isaac Belfer replied it would be “committed to agency discretion by law,” to which Murphy responded, “Suffice it to say that the Court disagrees.”
Despite the ruling, not all of the Trump administration’s vaccine policy changes are affected. Federal research funding and new vaccine approvals by the FDA, for instance, are not directly impacted.
The decision comes as the White House seeks to distance itself from vaccine policy changes, a key issue for Kennedy who founded the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense. With the election year approaching, officials are considering the political risks of a vaccine-focused agenda, which may influence the administration’s response to the ruling.
Wendy Parmet, a Northeastern University law professor, noted the administration might be hesitant to pursue a Supreme Court challenge, given that the changes were argued as recommendations. “They might be happy to slow roll it, the slow burn, might actually serve their political purposes,” she said.
Nonetheless, Malone considered potential ways to appeal the ruling, stating, “A district court order is a delay, not a defeat. The administration has strong grounds for appeal.”
Helen Branswell contributed reporting.
