By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Wednesday said it will appeal two federal court rulings tied to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) ongoing lawsuit challenging recent changes to federal vaccine policy.

CHD said it will appeal U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy’s Feb. 27 denial of CHD’s motion to intervene in the AAP’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

CHD will also appeal Murphy’s March 16 preliminary injunction that paused recent changes to vaccine policy and prohibited any further meetings of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) pending resolution of the AAP’s lawsuit against HHS.

Judicial precedent allows parties who argue they were wrongfully denied the opportunity to intervene in a case to appeal a ruling affecting their interests.

On his blog, Rick Jaffe, attorney for CHD, wrote:

“Within days, we will file an emergency motion in the First Circuit … seeking expedited consideration and injunctive relief pending appeal. The motion will ask the First Circuit to reverse the intervention denial, grant us party status, and stay Murphy’s preliminary injunction.”

Jaffe said he expects the case “to reach the Supreme Court, and sooner than you might think.”

CHD General Counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg said, “CHD and the other proposed intervenors continue to fight for the voices to be heard of those most impacted by the decisions made in this case.”

How it all started

In July 2025, the AAP and six medical groups sued HHS and Kennedy over recent changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women. The groups later amended the suit to include other changes to federal vaccine policy.

In January, the court greenlit the suit.

In February, CHD, along with two physicians and two parents of vaccine-injured children who died of their injuries, filed an emergency motion to intervene in the case, arguing the court must also hear from people injured by previous U.S. vaccine policy.

Murphy denied the motion.

Less than two weeks later, the judge granted AAP’s emergency motion to pause changes Kennedy made to ACIP and cancel its March meeting. ACIP advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy.

Murphy’s ruling also stayed changes Kennedy made in January to the CDC childhood immunization schedule. Those changes included reducing the number of diseases for which children would receive recommended routine vaccinations from 17 to 11.

In his ruling, Murphy called Kennedy’s changes “arbitrary and capricious.”

Judge’s ruling ‘contradicts federal law’

Jaffe told The Defender that Murphy’s ruling on the AAP injunction contradicts federal law — namely, the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, advisory committees exist “solely for advisory functions.” The act leaves policy determinations to the president, “or an officer of the Federal Government.”

“Judge Murphy’s order says the opposite,” Jaffe said.

Murphy’s ruling held that all federal vaccine policy must originate with ACIP. But the ruling stayed the appointments to the committee — which means there is no committee, and therefore no one to advise the CDC on vaccine policy until a new committee is appointed.

ACIP usually meets three times a year to review scientific data on the risks and benefits of vaccines and issue vaccine recommendations.

The committee had planned to meet earlier this month to discuss and vote on recommendations related to COVID-19 vaccine injuries, long COVID and how the committee makes its recommendations.

That meeting, originally scheduled for February, was postponed after the CDC missed the deadline for announcing it in the Federal Register. It was rescheduled for mid-March, just days before Murphy handed down his ruling canceling it.

Soon after his confirmation last year, Kennedy dismissed all 17 sitting members of ACIP because their financial ties to Big Pharma posed a conflict of interest. He replaced them with new members, who are now, under Murphy’s ruling, prohibited from meeting.

ACIP holds significant power when it comes to children’s vaccines. That’s because federal law requires the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program to follow ACIP’s recommended vaccine schedule.

The HHS secretary also relies on ACIP’s recommendations when purchasing, distributing and paying for pediatric vaccines.

‘Troubling’ that judge dismissed motion to intervene in ‘one sentence’

Murphy’s denial of CHD’s motion to intervene in AAP’s lawsuit against HHS “is equally troubling,” Jaffe told The Defender.

Murphy dismissed the “intervention in a one-sentence order to two mothers whose children died under the vaccine schedule and two physicians who lost their medical licenses for questioning it.”

Jaffe wrote:

“We filed a 40-page memorandum, three declarations with seven appendices, a proposed answer with counterclaims, and a full opposition to the preliminary injunction. AAP filed a 22-page opposition. Murphy gave it one sentence.”

Murphy’s ruling also “restores universal COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for healthy children” — even though no COVID-19 vaccine is currently approved or authorized for healthy children of any age in the U.S., Jaffe said.

CHD and the four physicians and parents seeking to intervene in the AAP lawsuit are co-plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit accusing the AAP of operating a racketeering scheme to defraud the American public by concealing the risks of the childhood vaccination schedule.

That lawsuit alleges that the AAP sought to conceal the results of two Institute of Medicine (IOM) studies questioning the safety of the childhood vaccination schedule.

The studies by IOM — now known as the National Academy of Medicine — were published in 2002 and 2013. They called for more research after finding that no studies had been conducted that compared the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The AAP — the nation’s largest pediatric trade group — receives funding from several vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and Sanofi.

Mack Rosenberg said, “AAP is a trade organization whose interests are to protect doctors, not children, and an organization closely aligned with and significantly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, creating massive conflicts of interest.”

“We seek to bring to light that AAP has long perpetrated a false narrative concerning, among other things, the safety of vaccines and the vaccine schedule,” Mack Rosenberg said.

Will HHS also appeal Murphy’s ruling?

Soon after Murphy ruled in favor of AAP’s preliminary injunction, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon suggested that the agency would appeal.

Nixon told The Defender in a statement that HHS “looks forward to this judge’s decision being overturned just like his other attempts to keep the Trump administration from governing.”

But so far, the federal government has not appealed Murphy’s decision or filed a motion for a stay.

Jaffe wrote that he is “not sure” if the government plans to do so, even though the ruling constitutes “a permanent leash on federal vaccine policy,” as it requires the CDC to wait for a now non-existent ACIP to act.

Jaffe wrote:

“If Kennedy’s advisors are telling him there’s nothing to do and that the solution is to just reappoint a new ACIP committee, they’re wrong. Murphy didn’t reject specific appointees. He held that the appointment process ‘in general, and thus the full committee, was tainted.’ Any new appointments will need to satisfy whatever ‘balance’ criteria Murphy has in mind, criteria the opinion never defines. Kennedy will need Judge Murphy’s permission before ACIP can reconvene.

“And every future action Kennedy takes on vaccines that AAP doesn’t like will produce another amended complaint, another PI [preliminary injunction] motion, and possibly a contempt proceeding.”

In a post on X last week, ACIP member Dr. Robert Malone wrote that the federal government decided to disband the committee instead of appealing.

Nixon later contradicted Malone, stating that “unless officially announced by us, any assertions about what we are doing next is baseless speculation.”

On Tuesday, Malone resigned from ACIP.

In a pair of posts on X today, Malone welcomed the intervention by CHD and the four physicians and parents — and questioned why HHS has not yet filed an appeal.

Thank god someone is willing to act. https://t.co/L9jOtfbwQr

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) March 25, 2026

HHS did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment by press time.

Related articles in The Defender

• Breaking: Federal Court Blocks ACIP Meeting, Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
• Will Ruling Against RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Policies Stand? Legal Experts Weigh In
• Federal Judge Weighs AAP Emergency Motion to Block Vaccine Policy Overhaul
• Federal Judge Clears Path for AAP to Sue RFK Jr. Over Vaccine Policy Changes
• Breaking: Children’s Health Defense Hits AAP With RICO Suit Over Fraudulent Vaccine Safety Claims
• AAP, Other Medical Groups Want Court to Block New CDC Vaccine Schedule

The post Children’s Health Defense Will Appeal Rulings in High-Profile Vaccine Lawsuit 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