A US federal court has denied the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging changes to Covid-19 vaccine recommendations, and the case will now continue on Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) claims, the Jurist reports.
The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) had 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 Immunisation 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.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr had announced in May last year that the CDC would no longer recommend the Covid-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women.
In response, several medical organisations, including the AAP and the American College of Physicians, filed a federal lawsuit alleging this was unlawful and harmful to the public; placed “misinformation, uncertainty, and confusion” into the doctor-patient relationship; and 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 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 immunisation 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 amid ongoing litigation and controversy surrounding government medical directives. A federal appellate court last Monday upheld an injunction on funding cuts to grants for medical research, while a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a preliminary injunction in July 2025 blocking the Trump administration’s plans to enact a sweeping reorganisation of DHHS that would have terminated 10 000 employees while simultaneously restructuring public health programmes.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
US panel stops advising Covid jab for adults
US reverses Covid vaccine guidelines, calls for new scientific evidence
Covid-19 vaccines don’t cause many harms, US review finds