States Sue HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Over Vaccine Schedule Under Administrative Procedure Act
Fourteen states have filed a federal lawsuit accusing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of violating the Administrative Procedure Act by revising the nation’s vaccine schedule without following the procedures required by federal law.
The complaint, filed Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges what the states call the “Kennedy Schedule,” along with related appointments to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, known as ACIP. The coalition, led by Arizona and California and joined by a dozen other states and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, seeks to block implementation of the revised schedule and invalidate related agency actions.
ACIP is a federal advisory body that reviews scientific evidence and recommends routine vaccinations in the United States. While its recommendations do not create criminal penalties, they carry substantial legal and financial consequences. Federal law ties certain insurance coverage requirements, public health programs, and participation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to ACIP guidance, giving the committee’s recommendations practical force nationwide.
The states allege that the secretary bypassed ACIP’s established review process, installed new appointees, and issued changes to vaccine recommendations without adhering to statutory requirements or the committee’s governing charter. According to the complaint, the revised schedule was adopted without the scientific deliberation and transparent procedure that federal law requires.
The lawsuit is grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and implement policy. Under that statute, a court must set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Agencies are required to examine relevant evidence, consider key aspects of the issue, and provide a reasoned explanation that shows a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made. Courts reviewing agency action do not evaluate the wisdom of the policy itself. Their role is to ensure that the agency follows the procedures Congress mandated and acts within its lawful authority.
The coalition contends those standards were not satisfied. The complaint asserts that federal officials failed to adequately consider scientific evidence, departed from established advisory processes, and did not provide a sufficient explanation for altering long-standing vaccine recommendations. The states further argue that certain appointments to ACIP were unlawful, and that recommendations flowing from those appointments should be invalidated.
Among the specific allegations are challenges to hepatitis B recommendations that the states say conflict with ACIP’s statutory role and internal procedures. Because ACIP recommendations can trigger insurance coverage obligations and shape state immunization programs, the coalition argues that unilateral changes produce immediate financial and regulatory consequences for states.
The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to formally declare the revised schedule and related appointments unlawful and to prevent their implementation. They also request that the court vacate those actions, which would nullify them and remove them from legal effect.
The coalition maintains that the changes have already imposed concrete burdens on state health systems. Because states administer immunization programs, coordinate with providers, and manage public health funding, the complaint asserts that abrupt shifts in federal vaccine guidance create operational disruption and financial strain.
Federal officials have not yet responded to the allegations in court.
