AAP and Other Medical Groups Sue Secretary of Health and Human Services

• by Carolyn Hendler, JD

• Published January 15, 2026
• Federal & State Courts
•  

• Large medical groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have sued U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in response to recent changes to federal vaccine policy, including removal of the COVID shot from the federally recommended childhood vaccine schedule for healthy children  The AAP, American College of Physicians, Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), American Public Health Association, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Massachusetts Public Health Alliance, and a pregnant woman filed a lawsuit in July 2025 against HHS Secretary Kennedy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.¹

  Plaintiffs alleged that changes to federal vaccine policy were made without scientific review and without following regulatory norms. They argued that the replacement of 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the cancellation of certain advisory meetings not only violated federal law, but also serves to erode public confidence in the public health infrastructure and the federal government’s mass vaccination program.

  Plaintiffs aim to stop the vaccine policy changes implemented by Kennedy and restore the previous vaccine schedule.² Plaintiffs further allege that the replacement of previous ACIP members created a new panel of biased members in order to support Kennedy’s views on vaccination and the harm associated with mRNA biologics such as the COVID shot.³

  Federal Judge Allows Case to Continue

  The government moved to have the case dismissed for lack of standing, but on Jan. 6, 2026, a Massachusetts federal judge decided that the lawsuit can continue.

  In order to bring a lawsuit, a party needs standing which means they have shown they suffered actual and direct harm from the challenged action.⁴ Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the Secretary.

  The government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they failed to show that they suffered direct harm from the new vaccine schedule and the changes that took place as a result of ACIP recommendations. However, Judge Murphy concluded that the changes at ACIP violates the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets forth that membership on government advisory panels be “fairly balanced.”⁵

  Plaintiffs Have Standing to Sue

  The court found that the AAP had standing to sue because the organization has had to take the time to counsel some its 67,000 pediatrician members, who claim to be directly impacted by the CDC’s action to alter the recommended schedule. Doctors who promote and administer vaccines became concerned that doctors and hospitals deviating from the new CDC recommended vaccine schedule will not be legally protected from liability for harm caused by vaccines under the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act because a 1987 amendment to the Act provided medical malpractice liability to vaccine administers if a child is harmed by a federally recommended vaccine.

  The court concluded that the vaccine schedule changes amount to a “concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization.”  The court sided with the plaintiffs who allege that they suffered financial injury due to the new federal vaccine policy, including having to spend more time with patients to discuss vaccines and, therefore, are able to see fewer patients per day.⁶

  The attorney for Children’s Health Defense, Kim Mack Rosenberg, stated:

  While I am somewhat surprised that the court found that plaintiffs have standing to sue here, [the ruling] reflects misperceptions about vaccines and children’s health generally [and the decision] does not reflect the reality that the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations are in many respects trade organizations for their professions — primarily protecting the interests of their members, not children.⁷

  AAP and co-plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2025 looking to dismantle the new ACIP panel and overrule the new vaccine use recommendations voted on by the panel.⁸

  Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Richard H. Hughes who was vice president of public policy at Moderna from 2020-2022 said that the newly constituted ACIP committee, “shouldn’t be making policy.”⁹

  Plaintiff’s Ignore Findings Showing Children Harmed by Serious Adverse Reactions to COVID-19 Shot

  Plaintiffs take issue with Kennedy’s decision to halt the recommendation of the COVID-19 shots for heathy children and pregnant women, claiming that there was no emergency or circumstances that supported his actions.¹⁰ Plaintiffs appear to dismiss the recent studies that have shown the negative impacts that the COVID-19 shot can have on children.

  A 2024 study in Norway showed that children faced an increased risk of serious adverse reactions after receiving the COVID mRNA shots including heart inflammation, anaphylactic shock, lymphadenopathy, cute appendicitis, epilepsy, convulsions and facial nerve palsy.¹¹ In 2024, a pre-print study in England found that of the 1.7 million children whose health records were reviewed, myocarditis and pericarditis were only found in those who received the COVID-19 shot.¹²

  In addition, an internal memorandum to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and Director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research was issued in November of 2025 pertaining to an FDA investigation into the death of children after receiving the COVID shot. The memorandum determined that at least 10 children died after receiving the COVID shot, but this information and other serious side effects were kept hidden from the public.¹³

  AAP Files Another Lawsuit Against Kennedy

  The AAP has recently initiated another lawsuit against Kennedy. This time the organization is fighting the administration’s termination of approximately $12 million in federal grants to the AAP. The AAP alleges that the funding was withdrawn in retaliation for their criticism of HHS and the lawsuit against Kennedy related to changes to federal vaccine policy, while Kennedy counters that the funding was discontinued due to changing priorities at HHS.¹⁴

  According to the AAP, the seven grants totaling approximately $12 million dollars in federal funding was targeted for training and technical assistance to pediatricians in rural communities, reduction in infant death, universal newborn screenings and prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome. The medical group alleges that their first amendment rights were violated by the cut in funding.^{15 16}

  The Complaint alleges:

  This coordinated attack to strip critical funds from AAP was not the result of a routine reappraisal of whether the terminated awards furthered agency priorities, conducted independently by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA) personnel, but was a decision from HHS leadership to punish AAP for its speech that contradicted and criticized HHS’s views on high-profile health policy issues. HHS’s action to punish AAP for its past speech and to chill future advocacy is a quintessential First Amendment violation.¹⁷

  The AAP is seeking to block the termination of the funding and get the grants reinstated pending the outcome of the lawsuit, claiming that without the court stepping in, the programs will be curtailed within weeks and staff laid off.¹⁸

  The AAP has been at odds with the CDC over their recommendation that administering the COVID shot to healthy children should be “based on shared decision making” between the parent and doctor and the CDC’s withdrawal of the the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose recommendation for infants born to hepatitis B negative mothers.¹⁹

  Meanwhile, Kennedy has asked that the AAP reveal the names of the corporations that back the organization, “so that Americans may ask whether the AAP’s recommendations reflect public health interest, or are, perhaps, just a pay-to-play scheme to promote commercial ambitions of AAP’s Big Pharma benefactors.”²⁰

  ---

  If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

  Click here to view References: