America’s vaccine policy on center stage again as court rules against RFK, ACIP

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has postponed its March 18-19, 2026, meeting due to a federal court ruling that puts on hold member appointments and votes.

A new federal ruling, and reactions to it, became the latest step in the nation’s continuing public debate over vaccine science and policy. The federal ruling granted a stay of member appointments during the tenure of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Also on hold are any actions from the 2025 ACIP meetings.

Vaccine supporters and Kennedy critics supported the ruling, which also sparked criticism. ACIP Vice Chair Robert W. Malone, M.D., M.S., called for U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy to be impeached. Malone also published the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notice that this week’s meeting was stayed until further notice.

The ruling has consequences for primary care physicians. The CDC's immunization schedules determine which vaccines insurers must cover at no cost to patients under the Affordable Care Act, as well as vaccine coverage under Medicaid, veterans' benefits programs and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides pediatric vaccines to states. Apart from policy and science, doctors must do their best to sort out patient confusion and skepticism in the exam room.

What happened in court

Murphy granted a preliminary injunction sought by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical organizations, staying a January 2026 memorandum that had dramatically reduced the number of childhood vaccines recommended as "routine," and suspending the appointments of members Kennedy had named to ACIP, the expert panel that for more than 60 years has guided the nation's immunization policy. The order stays all votes the reconstituted committee took in 2025, including votes to remove thimerosal from flu vaccines, downgrade the COVID-19 vaccine recommendation and limit the hepatitis B birth-dose recommendation. The case is scheduled to proceed to a full merits hearing.

‘Vaccines are critical to maintaining public health’

Health organizations and vaccine skeptics published statements about the ruling.

“For decades, the AAP partnered closely with the federal government to advance our mission of attaining the optimal health and well-being of children and youth,” AAP President Andrew Racine, M.D., Ph.D., FAAP, said in a statement. “We would much prefer to return to that partnership and collaborate with federal health care agencies instead of litigating against them.”

The American Public Health Association (APHA) issued a news release with statements from AAP’s attorney and leaders of health and medical specialty organizations.

"This ruling is a momentous step toward restoring science-based vaccine policymaking,” said AAP attorney Richard Hughes IV. “The judge recognized that the actions of Secretary Kennedy and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are not grounded in science and that they are destructive. We are thrilled that the court has discarded the baseless vaccine schedule changes made by Secretary Kennedy and is blocking the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices from doing further damage to vaccine policy."

APHA CEO Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., has been an outspoken critic of Kennedy and the secretary’s policies and actions.

"This injunction underscores the need for using science in public health decision-making and using a process that engages qualified experts when it comes to recommending interventions that impact human health," Benjamin said in the statement. "Trust occurs when we engage the public in a transparent process, not one where decisions are made behind closed doors by unqualified individuals and presented in a disingenuous way."

American College of Physicians President Jason M. Goldman, M.D., MACP, called the court decision a win for public health and guidance by science, not politics.

"Vaccines are critical to maintaining public health and recommendations about their use must be based on the best available data,” he said in a statement. “Scientific consensus and overwhelming evidence demonstrate that vaccines are safe and effective. We are encouraged by [the] injunction and hope that it will mean a return to a transparent and evidence-driven process that safeguards the health of all communities and the best interests of our patients."

COVID-19 injury considerations

The ruling came out just two days before the ACIP meeting that was to include deliberations about how federal regulators could track injuries from the COVID-19 vaccine. The New York Times and online journalist Maryann DeMasi reported on a confidential analysis drafted for ACIP’s meeting this week.

Online, Malone criticized the leaks ahead of the ACIP deliberations.

“Whoever leaked the confidential draft ACIP report ahead of the meeting — did more damage to the vaccine-injured and to righting harms done now and in the future, than anyone could possibly imagine,” Malone wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “In addition to that, there is a cascade of unintended consequences playing out now, and I have no idea where it all goes...but nowhere good.”

Disappointment, and a new opportunity

The activist group React19, dedicated to “science-based support for people suffering from long-term COVID-19 vaccine effects,” acknowledged this week’s ACIP meeting was to include deliberations about vaccine injuries.

“For many in our community, this meeting represented a long-awaited opportunity,” the group’s statement said, which was posted on X. “After more than five years of waiting, patients and families had prepared impact statements in hopes that the urgent need for clinical recognition, research and care for those suffering from serious post-vaccination conditions would finally be discussed.

“For those living with these conditions, this cancellation is deeply painful. It means more waiting, more uncertainty, and more time without the clinical guidance needed to help physicians recognize, diagnose, and treat patients who have been suffering for years,” the React19 statement said. “Our hearts are with every member of this community who had hoped their voice would finally be heard this week.”

Apart from ACIP, the CDC on March 18, 2026, will host a presentation about a proposal to create a new ICD-10 diagnostic code related to post-COVID-19 vaccination conditions. That will open a public comment period on the code and move toward formal recognition of patients with those conditions, the organization’s statement said.

What the administration did

In May 2025, Kennedy ordered that the CDC stop recommending pregnant women and “healthy” children be vaccinated against COVID-19. In June 2025, he fired all 17 existing ACIP members and replaced them over the following months.

In January 2026, Acting CDC Director Jim O'Neill, directed by a White House executive order, issued a memorandum that reduced the number of vaccines recommended as routine for children from 17 to 11. Several others were downgraded, including those for COVID-19, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, rotavirus and two meningococcal vaccines, to a category called "shared clinical decision-making," or SCDM. Under SCDM designation, vaccination is no longer the default; instead, each physician must engage the patient or parent in an individual discussion about whether to vaccinate.

Starting last summer, the AAP filed a lawsuit contesting Kennedy’s order. Since then, AAP has filed revised complaints that expand the scope of its legal objections to the ACIP appointments and ACIP recommendations of the ACIP board appointed by Kennedy.

Weighing the legal arguments

Murphy concluded AAP and other plaintiffs were likely to succeed on two central legal arguments.

First, the court found that the January 2026 memo was issued contrary to law. Multiple federal statutes, including the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid statute, explicitly tie insurance coverage requirements and government benefits to recommendations made by ACIP. The court ruled that because Congress repeatedly referenced ACIP by name in those statutes, the CDC director lacked authority to revise the immunization schedule without ACIP's involvement. "Congress has spoken directly to the CDC's immunization schedules and has required ACIP's specific involvement," Murphy wrote.

Second, the court found that the reconstituted ACIP likely violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, the federal law governing expert advisory panels. The law requires that advisory committees be "fairly balanced" in expertise and that appointments follow a transparent, rigorous vetting process.

The court found that at least six of the 15 current ACIP members appeared to lack any meaningful vaccine-related experience, and that three others had only marginal qualifications for a committee whose explicit function is to evaluate vaccine safety, efficacy and immunization practices. The previous appointment process typically took two years and included broad solicitation, curriculum vitae submissions, letters of recommendation and ethics disclosures. Kennedy replaced the entire committee within months.