In a significant legal development today, a federal judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s recent attempts to slash the number of universally recommended childhood vaccines, The New York Times reports.
The ruling by US District Judge Brian Murphy effectively stays the January 5 “Decision Memo” that demoted seven vital vaccines, including those for hepatitis B, rotavirus, and influenza, from “universally recommended” to a “shared clinical decision-making” status.
Although the basis for the hold had nothing to do with how unscientific the memo is, we turn to a short video by Lily Peng, Caden Ruan, and William Jiang at the Harker School in San Jose, California, which explains the science behind how the flu vaccine fights a mutating virus.
The Basis for the Hold: Procedural Failures
The court’s decision was not a ruling on the safety of vaccines themselves or on the science of RFK Jr’s memo, but rather on the unlawful methods used to change federal policy. Judge Murphy highlighted two primary procedural violations:
- 1. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Violations: The judge ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. By bypassing the long-established scientific frameworks used to evaluate vaccine data, the government failed to provide a reasoned, evidence-based justification for such a drastic policy shift.
- 2. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Violations: The court found that Secretary RFK Jr. likely violated federal law by firing the entire 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) last year and replacing them with hand-picked allies. The judge stayed the appointments of 13 new members, ruling that the panel was improperly constituted and lacked the “fair balance” required by FACA.
The Trump administration has already announced plans to appeal the injunction. The Department of Justice is expected to center its appeal on the notion that the HHS Secretary has broad, unilateral authority to determine which experts to consult and which peer-nation data (such as the comparison to Denmark’s schedule cited by RFK Jr.) to prioritize.
Attorneys for the administration could also contend that because ACIP is purely an advisory body, its internal makeup and the Secretary’s decision to ignore its historical norms are not subject to judicial review under administrative law.
The administration also maintains that the changes were not “unscientific” but were based on a “different interpretation” of existing vaccine data aimed at aligning the US with international standards.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the attorneys general from at least 15 states, and public health experts have issued statements criticizing HHS or supporting Judge Murphy’s hold, warning that changes would sow confusion, lower vaccination rates, and cause preventable hospitalizations.