Federal Appeals Court Questions Judge’s Block of Kennedy’s Vaccine Advisory Committee Appointments

A U.S. federal appeals court has questioned the authority of a Massachusetts judge who suspended 13 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a federal vaccine advisory committee appointed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments on Oct. 6, 2026, but the panel has not yet issued a ruling.¹

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on national vaccine use recommendations. Its recommendations influence federal vaccine policymaking, including recommended childhood vaccination schedules and certain insurance coverage requirements for federally recommended vaccines.²

Kennedy Replaces Vaccine Advisory Committee Members

On June 9, 2025, Secretary Kennedy removed all 17 appointed members of ACIP, an action described as an effort to restore public trust in federal vaccine recommendations and address concerns about conflicts of interest among members of the committee. Kennedy called for independent review of vaccine safety and effectiveness and greater transparency related to the committee’s work.³

Kennedy subsequently appointed new members but the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other medical trade organizations sued Kennedy in July 2025, challenging his removal of former ACIP members and appointment of new members, as well as changes to federal vaccine policy recommendations for children recommended by the new ACIP.⁴

Federal Judge Blocks 13 ACIP Member Appointments

On Mar. 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy stated that medical trade organizations were likely to succeed in their challenge. He concluded that the reconstituted ACIP committee likely failed to satisfy rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires federal advisory committees to be fairly balanced in the viewpoints represented and the work they are assigned to perform.⁵

Murphy said that only six of ACIP’s 15 newly appointed members appeared to have meaningful experience involving vaccines. He acknowledged that other members had expertise in their respective fields, but questioned whether their qualifications matched the committee’s purpose. He also stated that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had departed from established procedures for screening and selecting committee members.⁶

Accordingly, Murphy suspended 13 ACIP member appointments and the votes that had been taken in ACIP meetings by the new members. He also stayed changes made in January 2026 to the childhood vaccination schedule. The ruling was preliminary and did not resolve the lawsuit.

The federal government appealed the portion suspending the ACIP appointments, leaving the other parts of Murphy’s order unchallenged on appeal.⁷

Government Questions the Federal Appeals Court Authority

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Matthew Zorn argued that Judge Murphy did not have the legal authority to suspend Secretary Kennedy’s appointments. The government maintains that the appointments were not a final agency action subject to the type of court-ordered stay Murphy imposed. Zorn asked the appeals court to vacate the order so Kennedy could reconstitute ACIP and resume its vaccine policymaking work.⁸

U.S. Circuit Judge Joshua Dunlap questioned the plaintiffs about what final agency action they were challenging. The judges also examined whether the lower court had identified a sufficient legal basis for suspending nearly the entire committee.⁹

Chief Judge David Barron questioned the scope of the order and what injury it was intended to prevent. He said, “It’s hard to know precisely what harm this relief was designed to address.” The government argued that the suspension left ACIP without enough members to conduct meetings or vote on vaccine use recommendations.¹⁰

Medical Trade Defends the Suspension of ACIP’s Work

Andrew Pincus, who represents the medical trade organizations, argued that Murphy did not prohibit Kennedy from appointing a new ACIP committee. He said that Kennedy remained free to select members through what they deem a lawful process. The plaintiffs maintain that the order temporarily paused the challenged appointments rather than permanently preventing ACIP from operating.¹¹

The plaintiffs also argued that the First Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear the government’s appeal before the lawsuit is over. An injunction is a court order requiring or prohibiting specified conduct.¹² A stay, by contrast, temporarily suspends an action or proceeding.¹³

Under federal law, orders granting or denying injunctions generally may be appealed before a lawsuit is concluded. The plaintiffs contend that Murphy issued a stay rather than an injunction and argue that the distinction prevents an immediate appeal.¹⁴

The government disagrees. It argues that Murphy’s order effectively operates as an injunction because ACIP no longer has enough members to meet or vote. According to the government, the practical effect of the order makes it immediately appealable, regardless of whether Murphy called it a stay.¹⁵

Pincus also disputed the government’s characterization of the appeal as narrow. He argued that rulings in this case could affect future legal challenges to CDC vaccine use recommendations.¹⁶

CDC Cancels Meetings

The CDC cancelled ACIP’s October, March and June 2026 meetings. The CDC currently lists Feb. 24 to 26, 2027, as the next scheduled meeting.¹⁷

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