March 16, 2026
US Healthcare Journal Staff
Court halts revised childhood immunization schedule and suspends newly appointed federal vaccine advisory panel while legal challenge proceeds
A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked major changes to the nation’s vaccine advisory system and childhood immunization schedule while a legal challenge to the policy moves forward.
In the opening of the order, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy emphasized the role of scientific process in public health decisions, writing:
“Science… is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge… Nevertheless, science is still the best we have.”
The ruling preserves the existing federal vaccine advisory framework while the court reviews the legality of the policy changes.
In a ruling issued March 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction in part in the case American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy.
The court’s order can be viewed here:
https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/...
The lawsuit was filed by several national medical organizations challenging actions taken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The plaintiffs argue the federal government violated administrative law when it restructured the federal advisory committee that guides vaccine recommendations and revised the national childhood immunization schedule.
In his ruling, Judge Murphy wrote that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on one of their central legal claims.
“Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the reconstitution of ACIP and the January 2026 changes to the childhood immunization schedule violate the Administrative Procedure Act,” the order states.
The Administrative Procedure Act governs how federal agencies develop and implement policy, including requirements for proper procedures when significant policy changes are made.
The judge concluded that the government’s actions likely failed to comply with those procedural requirements.
The court’s order temporarily stays the appointments of 13 newly named members to the federal vaccine advisory committee that helps shape national vaccine policy.
That committee — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP — advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine recommendations.
For decades, ACIP has reviewed scientific evidence on vaccines and issued guidance that informs the national immunization schedule used by physicians, hospitals, and public health agencies.
Judge Murphy’s order stays the appointments of the newly named committee members while the court considers whether the panel was reconstituted in violation of federal law.
Because the court found the reconstituted committee likely violated legal requirements, the order also stays the effectiveness of votes taken by the reconstituted panel.
Those votes included recommendations concerning influenza vaccines, hepatitis B vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccines.
The ruling effectively restores the previous advisory framework while the legal challenge proceeds.
The court also stayed a January 2026 memorandum that revised the federal childhood immunization schedule.
According to the order, that memo revised the schedule of routinely recommended childhood vaccines and shifted several recommendations to a shared decision-making model between physicians and patients.
The court concluded the changes were likely implemented without following the procedural steps required under federal law.
Judge Murphy wrote that the government’s approach bypassed the established advisory process.
“The Government bypassed ACIP to change the immunization schedules,” the order states.
The judge also noted that Congress required the involvement of the advisory committee in the development of immunization schedules.
The lawsuit was filed by several national physician and public health organizations, including:
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Physicians
• American Public Health Association
• Infectious Diseases Society of America
The organizations argue that the federal government disrupted the longstanding scientific review process used to develop vaccine recommendations in the United States.
The preliminary injunction does not represent a final ruling on the merits of the case.
Instead, it temporarily pauses the policy changes and restores the prior advisory framework while the court reviews whether the federal government followed the procedures required under federal law when altering vaccine policy.
Further proceedings will determine whether the challenged actions ultimately comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes governing how federal public health guidance is developed.
Plaintiff and Attorney Statements
Andrew P. Racine, MD, PhD, FAAP, President, American Academy of Pediatrics
"Today's ruling is an historic and welcomed outcome for children, families, pediatricians and communities across the United States. For many years the American Academy of Pediatrics, in collaboration with partners in the federal government, recommended a schedule of immunizations to promote children's health and development. Today's ruling marks an important step toward restoring scientific decision-making that is at the heart of that partnership. Protecting the health and safety of America's children is what prompted the AAP to petition the court for this decision from the outset and that goal will remain our guiding principle."
Georges C. Benjamin, MD, CEO, American Public Health Association
"This injunction underscores the need for using science in public health decision-making and using a process that engages qualified experts when it comes to recommending interventions that impact human health," says CEO of the American Public Health Association Georges C. Benjamin, MD. He adds, "Trust occurs when we engage the public in a transparent process, not one where decisions are made behind closed doors by unqualified individuals and presented in a disingenuous way."
Richard Hughes IV, Epstein Becker Green, Attorney for Plaintiffs:
"This ruling is a momentous step toward restoring science-based vaccine policymaking. The judge recognized that the actions of Secretary Kennedy and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are not grounded in science and that they are destructive. We are thrilled that the court has discarded the baseless vaccine schedule changes made by Secretary Kennedy and is blocking the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices from doing further damage to vaccine policy."