On March 16, 2026, US District Court Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued a temporary injunction blocking Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from implementing sweeping changes to the nation's childhood vaccine schedule. The ruling represents a significant setback for the administration's vaccine policy overhaul and a major victory for public health advocates, including infection prevention and control (IPC) professionals who depend on robust immunization protocols to prevent disease transmission.
"This is a great victory for public health advocates and everyone who promotes it. There is strong evidence showing that vaccines work to protect and safeguard communities,” Shahbaz Salehi, MD, MPH, MSHIA, director of infection prevention and control—employee health at Foothill Regional Medical Center, Tustin, California, and a member of Infection Control Today®’s (ICT®’s) Editorial Advisory Board (EAB). He was also the recipient of the 2024 Infection Control Today Educator of the YearTM award.
What the Judge Blocked
The injunction stops Kennedy from carrying out vaccine policy changes recommended by his handpicked advisory committee, including a dramatic overhaul of the childhood vaccination schedule. In January, the CDC had reduced the number of recommended vaccines for children from 18 to 11, eliminating recommendations for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, respiratory syncytial virus, dengue, and 2 types of bacterial meningitis.
“All these vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, have been shown to have an excellent safety profile in children and to prevent devastating diseases such as measles and long COVID,” Kevin Kavanagh, MD, also a member of ICT’s EAB.
The ruling also puts on hold the 17 committee members Kennedy appointed to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) since June 2025, when he fired the entire original panel.
The Court's Reasoning
Judge Murphy found that the government removed all duly appointed ACIP members and summarily replaced them without undertaking the rigorous screening that had been the hallmark of ACIP member selection for decades. The judge noted that this process violated established federal administrative law.
The court also determined that Kennedy and his committee made arbitrary and capricious decisions, ignoring a long-used, well-regarded scientific process for developing vaccine policies, and that the government has disregarded those methods, thereby undermining the integrity of its actions.
Carol McLay, DrPH, MPH, RN, CIC, FAPIC, FSHEA, the 2025 president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Prevention (APIC), agreed. “I applaud this decision. RFK Jr’s proposed changes to the vaccine schedule without clear scientific justification, along with the dismissal of experienced advisory committee members and their replacement with individuals who lack scientific expertise, are reckless and deeply concerning. We’re already seeing diseases like measles return in communities where vaccination rates have dropped.”
“These actions have real consequences for families, especially young children and those who are medically vulnerable,” McLay continued. Before widespread vaccination, nearly 1 in 5 children died before their fifth birthday from infectious diseases like measles, pneumonia, and diphtheria. Vaccines remain one of our most effective tools for protecting our communities and keeping all of us safe and healthy.”
Implications for Infection Prevention
For IPC professionals, the ruling is significant. IPC specialists work at the intersection of policy and practice, implementing vaccination recommendations and tracking their effectiveness in preventing health care-associated infections. The reduced vaccine schedule threatened to create gaps in immunity, which could facilitate disease transmission in health care settings and among vulnerable populations.
The decision creates confusion among pediatricians and contributes to distrust of childhood vaccination. For IPC professionals managing infection prevention protocols, inconsistent vaccination recommendations complicate both patient assessment and facility planning.
“I am deeply relieved by this injunction, as it represents a critical victory for public health,” Brenna Doran, PhD, MA, ACC, CIC, AL-CIP, founder and CEO of Innovative Partners Institute, LLC, who is also a member of ICT’s EAB. “Preventing subject matter experts from engaging in rigorous, peer-reviewed discussion creates a dangerous vacuum in our health care infrastructure. When we undermine the systems proven to mitigate the harm of infectious diseases, we jeopardize the collective safety of our entire society and place millions of children at unnecessary risk.”
What Happens Next
The administration has indicated it will appeal the decision. The ruling is temporary while the lawsuit continues through the court system. However, the judge's strong language about administrative procedure violations suggests that the legal challenges to Kennedy's approach are substantial.
The appeal is not a surprise to Amesh Adalja, MD, FIDSA, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “I think that this was a good decision, and I think the judge really highlighted what many of us in the field have been saying, that RFK Jr's reign has been one of trying to ban expertise from the public health agencies that he controls, and that the changes that he made to the vaccine schedule were done solely to serve his antivaccine ideology and we're bereft of any kind of attention to actual data or science. I think that is a good decision; however, it’s going to be appealed, and I don't know what the ultimate fate is.”
ACIP was scheduled to meet this week to discuss COVID-19 vaccines, among other issues, but the meeting has been postponed. This pause in policy development provides time for stakeholders, including IPC professionals and medical organizations, to engage in the process.
The Broader Conversation
This legal action reflects tension between executive authority and established scientific processes. As one attorney for the plaintiffs stated, the ruling represents "a significant victory for public health, evidence-based medicine, the rule of law, and the American people."
For IPC professionals, the ruling affirms that vaccine policy should remain grounded in rigorous scientific processes and established expertise. As health care workers on the front lines of infection prevention, IPC specialists know firsthand the critical importance of maintaining evidence-based vaccination recommendations.
Another point to consider from Kevin Kavanagh, MD:
The insistence on requiring placebo-controlled studies for vaccines that have already undergone double-blind trials. This approach could potentially put children at unnecessary risk. The African study was attempts to sabotage efforts. Yes, that's a good example of how some try to undermine the importance of vaccines, especially the birth dose vaccine.
This particular study was US-funded, not a CDC study. Recently, a US-funded study on Hepatitis B vaccines for newborns in Guyana was halted by the African Centers for Disease Control and Prevention due to concerns about the study’s design and safety. Hepatitis B remains a significant problem in Africa. Not administering the birth dose of hepatitis B, which is proven to be safe and effective, could lead to avoidable deaths and suffering similar to what could happen otherwise.
These vaccine experiments and recommendations are being halted because more evidence is being demanded. However, the evidence they want cannot ethically be obtained. I believe many pediatric vaccine recommendations have been halted due to a misguided need for more proof, despite sufficient evidence already available. Repeating studies to gather more evidence would also raise important ethical issues.
We should recognize that Judge Murphy's decision is a step forward. Still, removing recommendations from a scientific context and framing them in legal terms may erode public confidence. Mixing these approaches could cause more problems.
“When influential voices cast doubt without strong, credible evidence, it creates confusion,” Vangie Dennis, MSN, RN, CMLSO, CNOR, FAORN, FAAN, the former president of the Association of Registered periOperative Nurses, wrote in her blog. “People start to question whether vaccines are safe, even though they undergo extensive testing, continuous monitoring, and strict regulation. No medical intervention is entirely without risk, but vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, and the risks of not vaccinating are far greater not just for individuals, but for entire communities.”
Dennis, who is also a member of ICT’s EAB, wrote that the benefits do not stop with the person receiving the vaccine. “Vaccines don’t just protect the person receiving them; they protect everyone around them. This concept, often referred to as herd immunity, is crucial for safeguarding those who cannot be vaccinated, such as infants or individuals with compromised immune systems. When vaccination rates drop, preventable diseases can resurge, putting vulnerable populations at serious risk. There have already been outbreaks of diseases such as measles in areas where vaccination rates have declined, which is a troubling reminder of what’s at stake.”
The full implications of this ruling will unfold as the case continues through the courts. In the meantime, health care organizations should maintain current CDC vaccine recommendations pending further legal and policy developments.
Adalja said, echoing what others’ words, “The fact is, RFK Jr has done so much damage to the vaccine ecosystem that it's going to be hard to undo, even with a court case going in the correct direction. What needs to happen is he needs to be removed from that position of power.”
Infection Control Today will continue to monitor vaccine policy developments and their implications for infection prevention practice.
