By Jill Erzen

California and Connecticut are preparing lawsuits against federal health agencies in response to recent changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine recommendations.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta last week told Reuters that his office is drafting a complaint. He said his “team is mobilized,” adding that attorneys are reviewing what legal standing the state may claim.

A spokesperson for Connecticut Attorney General William Tong confirmed that Tong’s office is working with California on a possible multi-state lawsuit. “We’re scrambling our jets,” Tong told Reuters.

The two states are planning to challenge changes made under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Several vaccines were moved from “recommended for all children” to a “shared clinical decision-making” model. Parents are now advised to consult clinicians rather than follow universal federal guidance.

Although the CDC issues vaccine policy recommendations, states ultimately decide which shots to require for school, daycare or employment and what exemptions to allow. States are not obligated to adopt every federally recommended vaccine.

Christina Hildebrand, founder and president of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, said California’s move raises legal and practical questions.

“States absolutely have the authority to set their own vaccine policies, so the idea of California suing over federal recommendations is unusual,” she said. “Until we see the actual filing, it’s hard to understand the legal basis — especially since California is free to follow its own guidelines regardless of what the CDC does.”

‘The ripple effect is confusion’

Bonta sharply criticized the new recommendations and distanced himself from what he described as Kennedy’s anti-vaccine views. “I like the facts. I like science,” he said.

A growing number of states, including California and Connecticut, have said they will reject the revised CDC schedule and instead follow the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) 2026 guidance. The AAP recommends routine vaccination against 18 diseases.

The CDC’s update reduced the number of vaccines recommended for all children from 17 to 11, though the dropped shots remain available and covered by insurance.

Hildebrand said diverging standards could leave families and physicians uncertain about which guidance to follow.

“The ripple effect is confusion,” she said. She added:

“That uncertainty erodes trust in the medical system and puts clinicians in an impossible position. Doctors were previously penalized for not following CDC guidance — now the question is whether they’ll be penalized for following it. That kind of regulatory whiplash undermines confidence in public health institutions.”

States’ actions may leave vaccine-injured families ‘with no clear path to recourse’

The schedule changes also reignited debate over federal liability protections for vaccine manufacturers.

Hildebrand warned that a multistate lawsuit could complicate access to compensation for families who claim vaccine injury.

“If California recommends vaccines no longer covered by the federal compensation program while also limiting liability under state law, injured families may be left with no clear path to recourse,” Hildebrand said.

Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, most claims must go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a special HHS-administered court funded by a 75-cent surcharge on each vaccine dose. The program largely shields manufacturers from direct lawsuits.

Kennedy has long criticized the system. In July 2025, he wrote on X, “The VICP is broken, and I intend to fix it.”

The 1986 Vaccine Act gave vaccine makers immunity against lawsuits by children who suffer vaccine injuries. The statute, and numerous subsequent court decisions, recognized that vaccines, like all medicines, are, in the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics case,…

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) July 28, 2025

Momentum to reform the program is building in Congress. On Feb. 11, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the End the Vaccine Carveout Act. The legislation would end the liability shield for vaccine makers and allow those injured by vaccines to sue manufacturers directly in state or federal court without first filing a VICP claim.

The U.S. Senate bill mirrors identical legislation reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2025 by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.).

Bonta open to ‘maybe’ limiting protections for vaccine makers

Despite sharply criticizing Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes, Bonta signaled he may be open to parts of the broader liability discussion.

He told Reuters he would “maybe” consider working with the Trump administration and Kennedy to limit federal immunity for drug companies over alleged vaccine injuries.

“Can there be an example of a pharmaceutical company that did something wrong, and hurt people based on the facts, and they’re enjoying absolute immunity when they should have accountability? Yeah, that’s possible,” Bonta said.

His remarks come as California has already moved to assert its own vaccine protections.

In September 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill allowing the California Department of Public Health to make its own vaccine recommendations. The law shields healthcare providers from liability if they follow state guidance for vaccines not universally recommended by the CDC.

Hildebrand said the overlapping legal and policy battles highlight the importance of informed choice.

“This reinforces why transparency, informed consent and accountability in vaccine policy matter now more than ever,” she said. “It highlights why clear, consistent policy — and honest communication with families — is so critical.”

AAP lawsuit expands — and Children’s Health Defense moves to intervene

The legal fight over vaccines is intensifying on multiple fronts.

The AAP and other medical groups sued Kennedy and HHS in federal court in Massachusetts, seeking to block the vaccine schedule changes and disband the Kennedy-appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) seeks to intervene in the case. In an emergency motion filed Feb. 18, CHD asked to join as a defendant alongside Kennedy and HHS. A Massachusetts federal court gave the AAP until 6 p.m. Feb. 26 to respond.

CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said the motion to intervene also raises new claims. She said that because many states have adopted the AAP’s vaccine recommendations, the AAP has effectively become a state actor.

The move adds to CHD’s broader legal campaign.

In January, CHD and five other plaintiffs sued the AAP, alleging the organization misled families about vaccine safety.

At the state level, CHD filed a separate lawsuit in January 2024 against the Medical Board of California, naming Bonta and others. The complaint accuses the board of illegally threatening disciplinary action against physicians for allegedly spreading COVID-19 “misinformation,” including guidance on vaccines. The case is still pending.

Related articles in The Defender

• Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Seeks to Intervene in High-Stakes Vaccine Lawsuit
• Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Hits AAP With RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Claims
• RFK Jr. Revamps Commission That Advises on Vaccine Injury Program
• Breaking: HHS Makes Sweeping Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
• Colorado, New Mexico Lawmakers Move to Control States’ Vaccine Guidelines
• Rand Paul Introduces Bill to End Liability Shield for Vaccine Manufacturers

The post California, Connecticut ‘Scrambling’ to Sue HHS Over Vaccine Schedule appeared first on Children’s Health Defense.

 

IPAK-EDU is grateful to The Defender as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More