Science Under Scrutiny: Courts Analyze Vaccine Policy Authority

By: Alison Booth
Edited by: Lauren Kim and Brooke Ebner

Over the summer, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed the recommendation of the COVID-19 immunization for children and pregnant women. The move came after Kennedy’s restructuring of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. [1]

Striking the recommendation directly contradicts evidence of the risks of pregnant women and children contracting COVID. Both groups are more likely to experience complications associated with the disease. Pregnant women who contract COVID-19 specifically are at a two to three times higher risk of miscarriage. [2] [3]

In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with five other leading U.S. medical groups, filed suit on July 7 against Kennedy and several federal agencies. The suit seeks to invalidate the actions of the newly reconstituted and largely anti-vaccination advisory panel, which replaced the prior panel of medical experts who specialized in immunology, virology, and vaccinology. [4]

The lawsuit follows a June ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. The ruling maintained the requirements for insurance providers to cover services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is an independent panel that meets to form recommendations on preventive medicine. Kennedy has weakened the Task Force by delaying meetings, significantly impacting the group’s ability to publish recommendations. [5] The Court further expanded executive power by allowing the Health and Human Services Secretary to “exert significant control over the Task Force.” Under this ruling, the Secretary is cleared to block or seek revision of Task Force recommendations and remove members [6].

On January 6, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case. The government sought dismissal on the basis that the plaintiffs had yet to experience harm from the changed recommendation schedule [7]. However, the case proceeds as the arguments are based on concerns ranging from individual access to healthcare to public confidence around vaccination [8].

A primary injunction was held on February 13 [9]. This type of hearing acts as a scaled-down trial. During the trial, medical associations that brought the suit argued that the court would ultimately rule in their favor at the conclusion of the trial. This standard procedure allows the judge to restrict actions to maintain the status quo until the conclusion of the trial. The findings of this stage of the trial are significant as they often indicate the direction of the final ruling.

The core of the argument of the medical associations lies in the lack of scientific evidence behind the changes. [10] The associations will also likely draw on the implications of the change. If the court upholds precedent, the legitimacy of the recommendations made by the CDC may fall into question. This harms the wider medical practice that the plaintiffs represent.

The government may, however, draw on the recent ruling by SCOTUS in Kennedy v Braidwood Management. As the current administration seeks to limit government reach and the court mandates expanded authority for the Health and Human Services Secretary under the June ruling, the Secretary is empowered to act unilaterally to constrain the role of government. [11]

Following the justifications from the department in light of the change to the recommendation schedule, the government may also draw on the desire for more clinical trial data. Kennedy is cautious of excessive approval of recommendations, opting for a more limited involvement of preventative medicine for otherwise healthy individuals. The Department of Health and Human Services has repeatedly requested greater testing from the producers of vaccines. [12]

The implications of this case are broad. The medical associations have outlined four key possibilities in their public appeals around the case. [13] Given that many insurance providers draw their coverage from the CDC’s recommendations, as the Kennedy v Braidwood Management establishes, reducing the scope of the CDC schedule is likely to have direct impacts on coverage. Even if independent medical associations maintain the recommendations, coverage is more likely to follow the governmental requirements.

Beyond changes to coverage, government skepticism of the necessity of vaccination leaks into public sentiment about the importance of preventive medicine. With conflicting messages from the government and healthcare providers, it is more likely that individuals’ questions reach beyond the COVID-19 vaccination and into other areas of preventive medicine. Nonetheless, such medicine is the basis for individuals leading healthier and safer lives.

With the reduction in vaccination, which is likely to follow the changes to the CDC vaccination recommendation schedule, the critical herd immunity will wane. A large benefit of vaccination is when a maximal number of individuals in a society become vaccinated. Even if one can survive an infection unvaccinated with minimal personal harm, the increased prevalence of disease is detrimental for those who are medically unable to become vaccinated or are more susceptible to the effects of the disease.

While the final ruling on this case remains distant, the recently granted primary injunction indicates court interest in the governmental reliance on medical experts in formulating public health recommendations. [14]

Notes

1. Kekatos, Mary. 2026. “Medical groups sue HHS, RFK Jr. over 'unlawful' vaccine changes.” ABC News. ABC News Network. July 7. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-groups-sue-hhs-rfk-jr-unlawful-vaccine/story?id=123531646. 

2. Mandavilli, Apoorva. 2025. “Medical Societies Sue Kennedy and H.H.S. Over Vaccine Advice.” The New York Times. July 7. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/health/vaccines-kennedy-lawsuit.html. 

3. Beusekom, Mary Van. 2025. “COVID before or during pregnancy may confer 2 to 3 times the risk of miscarriage.” University of Minnesota CIDRAP. May 13. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-or-during-pregnancy-may-confer-2-3-times-risk-miscarriage.

4. O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. February 4. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

5. Agrawal, Nina, Maggie Astor and Dani Blum. “Kennedy Weakens U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.” 2026 New York Times. January 9. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/well/rfk-jr-uspstf-task-force.html 

6. Keith, Katie and Andrew J. Twinamatskio. 2025. “The Price of Preserving Preventive Services Coverage.” The Regulatory Review. July 16. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/17/keith-twinamatsiko-the-price-of-preserving-preventive-services-coverage/.

7. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS et al. v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., et al., (Massachusetts 2026). https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxjgoeavx/01062025vaccine.pdf.

8. O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. February 4. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

9. O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. February 4. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

10. O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. February 4. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

11. Kekatos, Mary. 2026. “Medical groups sue HHS, RFK Jr. over 'unlawful' vaccine changes.” ABC News. ABC News Network. July 7. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-groups-sue-hhs-rfk-jr-unlawful-vaccine/story?id=123531646. 

12. Kekatos, Mary. 2026. “Medical groups sue HHS, RFK Jr. over 'unlawful' vaccine changes.” ABC News. ABC News Network. July 7. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-groups-sue-hhs-rfk-jr-unlawful-vaccine/story?id=123531646. 

13. O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. February 4. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

14. O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. April 1. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

Bibliography

Beusekom, Mary Van. 2025. “COVID before or during pregnancy may confer 2 to 3 times the risk of miscarriage.” University of Minnesota CIDRAP. May 13. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-or-during-pregnancy-may-confer-2-3-times-risk-miscarriage.

Keith, Katie and Andrew J. Twinamatskio. 2025. “The Price of Preserving Preventive Services Coverage.” The Regulatory Review. July 16. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/17/keith-twinamatsiko-the-price-of-preserving-preventive-services-coverage/.

O’Neill Institute Staff. “American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et Al.” 2026. Health Care Litigation Tracker. February 4. https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/american-academy-of-pediatrics-et-al-v-robert-f-kennedy-jr-et-al/.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS et al. v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., et al., (Massachusetts 2026). https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxjgoeavx/01062025vaccine.pdf.

Kekatos, Mary. 2026. “Medical groups sue HHS, RFK Jr. over 'unlawful' vaccine changes.” ABC News. ABC News Network. July 7. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-groups-sue-hhs-rfk-jr-unlawful-vaccine/story?id=123531646. 

Mandavilli, Apoorva. 2025. “Medical Societies Sue Kennedy and H.H.S. Over Vaccine Advice.” The New York Times. July 7. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/health/vaccines-kennedy-lawsuit.html.