A federal judge has rejected a bid by the Trump administration to throw out a case brought by medical organizations and several women against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination and Kennedy’s remaking of a vaccine advisory panel.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy on Jan. 6 ruled in favor of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the other plaintiffs.
The suit was initially brought over the summer, targeting Kennedy’s directive to the CDC ordering the agency to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children and pregnant women. The CDC narrowed its COVID-19 recommendations in May.
Plaintiffs, who are tied to vaccine manufacturers, said that Kennedy’s directive was arbitrary and capricious in violation of federal law, in part because it allegedly went against “the wealth of data and peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines for children and pregnant women,” and because Kennedy did not consult the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a panel that advises the CDC on vaccines.
Doctor plaintiffs said that they were being forced to spend time outlining various factors for people seeking COVID-19 vaccines, and that if the people ultimately chose not to receive a shot, insurers would not reimburse the doctors for their time.
The CDC more recently, on Oct. 6, updated its COVID-19 vaccine guidance again, based on advice from ACIP, and recommended that each person should consult with health care professionals before receiving one of the shots.
That means that Kennedy’s directive is moot, lawyers representing government officials had said.
Murphy said in a 22-page decision that the directive is partially still in place, at least with respect to pregnant women, so it is not moot.
The plaintiffs also argued in court filings that Kennedy’s remaking of ACIP—by removing all its members, and selecting replacements—violated a different law, because the panel is not “fairly balanced” and has been “inappropriately influenced” by Kennedy.
They cited a statement by Dr. Robert Malone, an ACIP member, on his blog that “at the specific direction of both the President and Secretary, major changes in public health and vaccine policies are being made by Secretary Kennedy’s team with the assistance of the reconstituted and redirected ACIP.”
James Oh, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told Murphy during a hearing on Dec. 17 that other proof included how, during a December meeting, a lawyer was able to speak to ACIP for more than one hour. Aaron Siri, the lawyer, once represented Kennedy’s presidential campaign. Typically, the panel hears from doctors and other medical experts, the plaintiffs said.
Isaac Belfer, a government attorney, said during the hearing: “There are no well-pleaded allegations showing the secretary’s inappropriate influence on ACIP, showing the Secretary has done anything to influence ACIP.
“Simply arguing that certain ACIP members agree with the secretary on certain issues doesn’t show the secretary is inappropriately influencing anyone.”
Murphy said that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the panel is not fairly balanced, in part because of statements made by many members expressing opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines made with messenger ribonucleic acid technology.
“The allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss,” he said.
HHS declined to comment. The American Academy of Pediatrics did not respond to an inquiry.