When a federal judge on Monday blocked the changes in vaccine policy set in motion by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over the last year, public health groups hailed the ruling as a victory for science and evidence-based government recommendations.
Their jubilation may be short-lived. The Trump administration is planning to appeal the decision, and if it does so quickly enough, an appeals court could overturn Monday’s ruling before the end of the week.
The ruling revoked the authority of advisers appointed to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices by Mr. Kennedy to make vaccine recommendations, and ordered a return to the childhood vaccine schedule from before their appointment.
On Tuesday, experts in public health, law and government said they were still trying to understand its ramifications.
In at least one case, some unintended harm may result: The decision leaves unresolved questions about the status of a shot that protects against respiratory syncytial virus, or R.S.V., the leading cause of hospitalization among infants. That shot may no longer be available for free to children who need it because its inclusion was authorized by the current vaccine advisers.
In his ruling, District Judge Brian Murphy cast a bright light on Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine policies, even as the White House has directed the health secretary to pivot away from the topic ahead of the November midterms. Despite a rise in vaccine skepticism during Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, there is strong support for childhood shots across the political spectrum. Mr. Kennedy has, in large part, complied, focusing instead on healthy food.
Judge Murphy, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued the ruling in a lawsuit brought by six medical organizations. The organizations contended that Mr. Kennedy and his appointees had made “arbitrary and capricious” recommendations on vaccines.
Judge Murphy, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democrat, also said that the members Mr. Kennedy appointed to the A.C.I.P., which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy, “appear distinctly unqualified” to recommend vaccines.
Some vaccine committee members disputed that characterization and said on Tuesday they believed the judge’s ruling would ultimately prove damaging to public health.
“It actually hurts children’s access to vaccines,” Dr. Robert Malone, one of the panelists, said.
Dr. Adam Urato, an obstetrician-gynecologist who had only recently been appointed and had yet to participate in a meeting of the committee, said, “This move is harmful for patients and the public.”
Other reactions to the judge’s ruling fell predictably along the divide between those who champion vaccines and those who are skeptical of or even vehemently opposed to them.
“The federal judge’s decision was such a relief, especially for beleaguered pediatricians wading through a sea of misinformation,” said Dr. Megan Schultz, a pediatric emergency physician at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
But Del Bigtree, a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement and the director of communications for Mr. Kennedy’s 2024 presidential campaign, said the judge had no right to intervene in public health decisions made by the health secretary.
Mr. Bigtree said that a healthy child “can handle every virus and bacteria that we’ve evolved with over time,” and that vaccines presented a greater danger to children than the diseases themselves.
“I think this is an abomination of justice,” Mr. Bigtree said of the court’s ruling. “I think it’ll go down in history as one of the worst decisions, and I think it’ll make this judge infamous.”
More immediately, the back and forth on vaccine policies is creating confusion for states, clinicians and patients. As of Tuesday, the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still showed the changes made by Mr. Kennedy and his appointees. It did not reflect the judge’s ruling, which effectively reinstated the childhood vaccination schedule in use before June 2025.
Most states, physicians’ groups and insurance companies had already decided to ignore the administration’s recommendations. But the 20 states that still adhere to current C.D.C. guidelines may be too nervous to embrace the ruling — and to allow their pharmacists to administer vaccines accordingly — until the agency restores the previous schedule, said Dorit Reiss, an expert on vaccine policy and law at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.
“Judicial decisions don’t enforce themselves,” she said. “So how is this going to work in practice?”
Among the actions the court negated is one that allowed free access to a product, called a monoclonal antibody, that protects against R.S.V. The virus typically peters out by March but is still sickening children this year. There is another monoclonal antibody, also free, that confers the same protection, but the ruling may limit options available to some children, unless the Department of Health and Human Services intervenes to restore access.
“It would be unfortunate if the court ruling were to limit access to a critical prevention tool for infants and young children, especially as R.S.V. activity is rising, with the highest rates of severe illness among those under age 4,” Dr. Robert Hopkins Jr., medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, said.
The health department did not respond to questions about the situation.
The judge’s decision also inadvertently blocks a recommendation made for the flu vaccine for all Americans 6 months and older. That outcome is less worrying, some experts said, because flu season is on the decline.
The impacts on R.S.V. and flu not are in conflict with the central goals of the lawsuit, which was initially filed after Mr. Kennedy unilaterally announced via social media that the Covid vaccines would no longer be recommended for healthy children or pregnant women.
The lawsuit was later expanded to include decisions made by the vaccine committee to stop recommending routine vaccination of all newborns against hepatitis B, a potentially lethal virus, and a new shorter childhood vaccination schedule that Mr. Kennedy and his appointees introduced in January.
In issuing the ruling, Judge Murphy did not critique the scientific merits of those recommendations but rather that they had circumvented the careful processes used to sift through the evidence of benefits and harms from vaccines.
Administrative procedures may seem boring and cumbersome, Ms. Reiss said, but “we have them because they are ways to assure notice, deliberation and good explanation from the agencies, all which are part of transparency, good governance and holding agencies accountable.”
“These are important things,” she added.
The judge also ruled that the current members of the A.C.I.P. were not qualified to advise Mr. Kennedy on vaccine policy.
Dr. Malone, one of the committee members, took particular umbrage at this assessment. The judge “slandered me” and “completely overlooked my actual C.V. and experience,” he said.
(Dr. Malone was the first person to use the mRNA technology that powered the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines, although his goal at the time was unrelated to vaccines.)
Dr. Malone and other panelists sometimes engaged in angry debates at the A.C.I.P.’s meetings that were highly unusual for the once-staid committee. Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who often disagreed with Dr. Malone, seemed to agree that the committee’s dynamic was less than ideal.
“The dysfunction of this committee should serve as a warning that we must both fund the best science possible and work together respectfully or face dire consequences,” he said.
In January, Mr. Kennedy’s appointees bypassed the vaccine committee entirely in creating a new schedule for childhood vaccination that removed protection from routine immunization for six diseases, including meningitis and hepatitis, reducing the number of shots recommended for children to 11 from 17.
Lawyers for the government argued that Mr. Kennedy had broad authority to make such decisions, but the judge disagreed. He noted that Congress had stipulated a role for the vaccine committee and that skirting the A.C.I.P. violated that directive.
“When Congress puts this requirement, it’s because it wants more review,” Ms. Reiss said. “It’s the administration’s job to faithfully execute the laws as created by Congress, including going through deliberation and procedures that Congress sets out.”
Overall, the judge’s ruling is an indication that he believes the plaintiffs have a good chance of ultimately winning their case.
It was a broader blow to Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine agenda than the organizations that brought the lawsuit had initially anticipated. They had expected that the judge would rule on one part of the lawsuit — preventing the vaccine advisers from meeting later this week — while he pondered the rest.
Still, Mr. Kennedy’s policies, and his false comments about the harm from vaccines, have already caused much damage — some of it perhaps irreversible — to people’s trust in vaccines, some clinicians said.
Alissa Parker, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Ashland, Ky., who has been facing a surge in vaccine skepticism, said she welcomed the judge’s decision.
“However,” she added, “I don’t think parents who are already skeptical of vaccines from what’s been done up until now will be changing their minds any time soon.”
Apoorva Mandavilli reports on science and global health for The Times, with a focus on infectious diseases and pandemics and the public health agencies that try to manage them.
The post Health Groups Hailed a Vaccine Ruling, but Their Relief May Be Short-Lived appeared first on New York Times.
