A federal court on Tuesday denied the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. The case will continue on Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) claims.
The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) established standing by showing it had to redirect time, money, staff and resources away from its normal activities to provide guidance and support to member doctors in response to the directive, and that its members have standing through financial injuries. The plaintiffs further plausibly alleged that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations violated fair balance requirements under the FACA, which mandates that federal advisory committees be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented” and free from “inappropriate influence” by the appointing authority. The lawsuit will proceed on its merits.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in May 2025 that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women. Several medical organizations, including the AAP and the American College of Physicians, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that this directive was unlawful and harmful to the American population. It asserted that the directive placed “misinformation, uncertainty, and confusion” into the doctor-patient relationship, and that the policy would “result in decreased rates of vaccination, increased rates of transmission, long-lasting illness, and ultimately deaths among pregnant women, unborn children, and all children.” The lawsuit sought to have the directive declared as unlawful and to have previous COVID-19 vaccination policies put back in place.
The government filed a motion to dismiss in November 2025, arguing that the CDC’s October immunization schedules reflected September ACIP recommendations rather than Kennedy’s May directive. It further claimed that the plaintiffs lacked standing because no one had suffered a concrete injury traceable to the challenged actions. The court however found that the ACIP vote may have effectively implemented the directive.
The ruling comes amidst ongoing litigation and controversy surrounding government medical directives. A federal appellate court on Monday upheld an injunction on funding cuts to grants for medical research. A federal judge in Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction in July 2025 blocking the Trump administration’s plans to enact a sweeping reorganization of DHHS that would have terminated approximately 10,000 employees while simultaneously restructuring public health programs.
