(April 15, 2026) — In March 2026, the future of the nation’s immunization framework hung in the balance. In a major ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an injunction that blocked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from overhauling and downscaling the recommended childhood vaccine schedule.
Behind this critical victory for evidence-based medicine was a coalition of top legal and public health minds, brought together by the Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health (Milken Institute SPH). Through its Health Scholars Legal Initiative, the Hirsh Program authored a pivotal amicus brief that provided the rigorous legal and scientific framework that informed the judge’s decision to halt the federal government's actions.
The Crisis: Slashed Vaccine Schedules and Procedural Oversteps
The legal battle erupted after unprecedented policy shifts at HHS. Under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., HHS fired all 17 long-standing members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)—the independent panel that has shaped federal vaccine recommendations since 1964. In their stead, a slate of new advisers was appointed without the required rigorous vetting process.
Shortly after, the committee scaled back the routine childhood immunization schedule, cutting the number of universally recommended vaccines from 17 down to 11. Crucial inoculations for Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, rotavirus, influenza, and COVID-19 were stripped of their "routine" status and downgraded to a category called “shared clinical decision-making”—a designation historically reserved for niche circumstances where evidence of a broader societal benefit is unclear.
The cascading impact threatened to create widespread public confusion, disrupt state school-entry mandates, and severely reduce vaccination rates. Between 1994 and 2023, vaccinations for U.S. children designated as routine prevented an estimated 508 million illnesses, 32 million hospitalizations, and more than 1.1 million deaths. Reversing these policies meant putting millions of children at risk of preventable diseases.
The Intervention: Health Scholars Speak to the Court
Recognizing the danger to public health and the rule of law, administrative law and public health scholars stepped up. Led by the Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program’s Health Scholars Legal Initiative, the coalition filed an amicus brief offering a stark warning to the federal court. The brief’s argument was twofold, blending health data with administrative law:
- The Downgrades Defied Science: Shifting heavily documented, life-saving vaccines to "shared clinical decision-making" actively ignored overwhelming scientific consensus regarding their safety and efficacy.
- HHS Violated Federal Procedure: Major changes to vaccine policy cannot happen in a vacuum. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), federal agencies are legally bound to follow strict procedural standards, including thorough evidence review, transparent public formulation of recommendations by a legitimately constituted ACIP, and public notice-and-comment windows. HHS had bypassed all of it.
"Federal law is clear: changes to vaccine access and use simply cannot happen without extensive process," noted Professor Emerita Sara Rosenbaum, a former ACIP member and renowned figure in health law in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Milken Institute SPH. Hirsh Program Director Alison Barkoff, a signatory on the brief, emphasized that the unilateral shifts left clinicians and families utterly confused on the ground.
The Outcome: A Resounding Legal Victory in the District Court
When Judge Murphy issued his decision to block the administration’s vaccine agenda, there were echoes of the Hirsh Program's brief. The judge struck down the appointments of the new ACIP members and stayed all votes they had taken, noting that only six of the 13 new appointees had any meaningful experience in vaccines.
Judge Murphy ruled that the sweeping policy changes were "arbitrary and capricious." He admonished HHS for trying to circumvent established legal frameworks, writing:
"There is a method to how these decisions historically have been made—a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements. Unfortunately, the Government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions."
By holding the federal government accountable to the rule of law, the court restored a science-based process to federal vaccine policy, keeping children safe and maintaining a stable vaccine ecosystem. But the fight is not over. The federal government has filed an appeal of Judge Murphy’s decision. Fortunately, the court of appeals has allowed the decision halting the changes to stay in place while the lawsuit continues.
Shaping Tomorrow: The Growing Impact of the Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program
This case is a prime example of how the Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program is fulfilling its core mission. Endowed by Harold and Jane Hirsh, the program bridges the gap between law and public health through a multi-faceted approach. It houses GW’s prominent joint JD/MPH degree program, preparing the next generation of leaders to navigate complex regulatory environments.
But as the AAP v. Kennedy case proves, the program is more than an educational hub, it is an active, real-time catalyst for national policy. Through the Health Scholars Legal Initiative, the program ensures that leading public health scholars, deans and public health organizations have a direct, loud voice in high-stakes federal litigation. (In fact, just weeks after the vaccine brief, the Initiative spearheaded another major amicus brief in State of New York v. DOJ, fighting an HHS notice that threatened to strip millions of immigrants of community-based health benefits).
By demanding that federal policy remain anchored to rigorous evidence and constitutional procedure, the Hirsh program isn't just analyzing health law, it is aggressively protecting the health of the public.
-GW-