Image: Adobe Stock.<\/i>
The AAP announced this week that the existing lawsuit was being amended to ask the court to undo HHS\u2019s changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, which reduced the number of immunizations recommended for all children, and to stop the next meeting of the CDC\u2019s vaccine advisors.<\/p>\n
The groups are asking HHS to restore the immunization schedule that was in place before April 15, 2025, arguing that the recent overhaul of the childhood immunization schedule \u201cis the most egregious of the Defendants\u2019 actions to date, is a continuation of their bad faith conduct, has not been reasonably explained, and, therefore, must be enjoined,\u201d according to court documents.<\/p>\n
\u201cChildren\u2019s health depends on vaccine recommendations based on rigorous, transparent science,\u201d AAP President Andrew D. Racine, MD, PhD, FAAP, <\/b>said in a press release. \u201cUnfortunately, recent decisions by federal officials have abandoned this standard, causing unnecessary confusion for families, compromising access to lifesaving vaccines and weakening community protection.\u201d<\/p>\n
The group is also asking the court to postpone the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting scheduled for Feb. 25 and 26, citing \u201cso many instances of misinformation disseminated at the December 4-5, 2025 ACIP meeting and prior meetings of this ACIP that it would be harmful to the public if the next ACIP meeting went ahead as scheduled at which more misinformation could be disseminated.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lawrence O. Gostin, JD,<\/b> professor and founding director of the O\u2019Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown, offered a mixed outlook on their chances of success.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the trial court, the litigation has a reasonable chance to succeed, including putting a pause on the change to the vaccine schedule. The postponement of the next ACIP meeting will be harder to win but still possible,\u201d Gostin told Healio. \u201cBut in the long run, the chances of prevailing before the Supreme Court are slimmer, especially with its conservative super majority.\u201d<\/p>\n
The AAP claimed a legal victory this week when a court ordered the federal government to restore $12 million in grant funding for child health programs that was cut in December while the case proceeds. The AAP alleged that the funding cuts were in retaliation for its outspoken opposition to policy changes enacted under Kennedy.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe AAP\u2019s case is strong,\u201d Gostin said. \u201cFirst, there is a compelling First Amendment claim because the government can\u2019t determine which speech or policies that the AAP wants to advocate for. Second, funding is a congressional function and can\u2019t simply be decided unilaterally by HHS without any deliberative process.\u201d<\/p>\n
For more information:<\/h2>\n Lawrence O. Gostin, JD,<\/b> can be reached at gostin@georgetown.edu or on X.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Sources\/Disclosures<\/h3>\n Source: <\/h2>\n
References:<\/h2>\n\n
Disclosures: <\/strong>
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Ask a clinical question<\/strong> and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge<\/strong> base.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nPubMed, enrolling\/recruiting trials, guidelines<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data<\/li>\n
\n <\/ul>\n
Learn more<\/button>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n