The American Academy of Pediatrics and Others Sue HHS Secretary Kennedy Over Vaccine Policy

When Dr. “Jane Doe” walked into her hospital one morning in late May, she had no idea that her pregnancy had just become part of a national legal battle. The anonymous physician, now more than 20 weeks pregnant, found herself at the center of : who gets to decide what vaccines we should receive?

The story begins with a surprising announcement on May 27, 2025, when Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted a video on social media declaring that COVID-19 vaccines were . Standing beside him were two other top health officials, . But what seemed like a straightforward health decision to some quickly became a legal nightmare for others.

Within weeks, some of the nation's most respected medical organizations had filed a federal lawsuit challenging Kennedy's directive. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 67,000 pediatricians nationwide, . Together, they argued that .

To understand why this case matters so much, we need to step back and look at how vaccine policy normally works in America. For more than 60 years, , or ACIP for short. This group of doctors, researchers, and public health specialists . Their decisions become the foundation for what doctors across the country recommend to their patients.

Think of ACIP like a panel of expert mechanics who examine new car safety features. Just as you'd want qualified engineers, not politicians, deciding whether a new airbag design is safe enough for your family's car, medical experts have traditionally been the ones determining vaccine recommendations. This system has been deeply embedded in federal and state laws for decades.

The lawsuit filed against Kennedy argues that he ignored this established process entirely. According to , Kennedy signed his directive on May 19, 2025, but didn't announce it until eight days later. Perhaps most troubling to the medical groups, he made this decision without consulting ACIP, the CDC, or any of the scientific workgroups that normally review vaccine data.

Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, described the situation bluntly: "." The concern isn't just about this one decision, but about what it means for the future of science-based medicine in America.

The legal arguments in this case center on something called the , a law that governs how federal agencies must make decisions. This might sound boring and bureaucratic, but it's actually quite important. The law requires that when government agencies make major policy changes, they must follow certain procedures and provide reasonable explanations based on evidence.

The doctors argue that Kennedy's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" because he provided no new scientific evidence to justify changing the recommendations. In fact, just seven days before Kennedy's directive, his own FDA Commissioner . The lawsuit points out this contradiction as evidence that the decision wasn't based on science but on other factors.

Making this case even more unusual is Kennedy's own testimony before Congress just five days before he signed the directive. Under oath, he told lawmakers, "" and "." Yet days later, he made a unilateral decision affecting millions of Americans' access to vaccines.

The real-world impact of Kennedy's directive has been swift and concerning, according to the medical groups. In the court filing, Dr. Mary Doherty-O'Shea Galluci, a pediatrician in Michigan, reports seeing an uptick in vaccine hesitancy among parents who now question whether they should vaccinate their children against COVID-19. She's particularly worried about pregnant patients and infants under 12 months old, noting that "during pregnancy, the immune system is suppressed to protect the developing fetus." .

The anonymous pregnant physician in the lawsuit, referred to as “Dr. Jane Doe,” embodies these concerns. As a hospital-based doctor, she's exposed to infectious diseases every day while caring for patients. Her doctors have advised her to get another COVID vaccine dose later in pregnancy to protect both herself and her baby, but Kennedy's directive has created barriers to accessing the vaccine and left her "overwhelmed with stress and uncertainty."

Insurance companies and pharmacies have begun treating COVID vaccines differently since Kennedy's announcement. According to the lawsuit, some pregnant women report being denied vaccines at multiple pharmacies, with staff citing "perceived legal risks or confusion created by the Secretary's Directive." This creates a particularly cruel irony: just when medical science shows vaccines are most needed, administrative barriers make them harder to get.

The historical context makes this legal challenge even more fascinating. More than a century ago, in 1905, the Supreme Court decided a case called , which established that . That case involved a Cambridge pastor who refused a smallpox vaccine during an outbreak and was fined $5 (equivalent to about $182 today).

The Court ruled that "" and that states have the power to protect public health even when it restricts personal freedom. This principle has guided American vaccine law ever since, through cases involving school requirements and religious exemptions. But the current lawsuit presents a different question: not whether the government can require vaccines, but whether a single political appointee can unilaterally prevent evidence-based vaccine recommendations from reaching the public.

What makes Kennedy's actions particularly controversial is the broader pattern they represent. According to the suit, before making his COVID vaccine announcement, he had already canceled flu vaccination campaigns during what officials called "the worst flu season the nation has seen in nearly 30 years." He postponed scientific advisory meetings without explanation and that states were counting on for immunization programs.

Perhaps most dramatically, the suit states that in June 2025, announcing their termination in a Wall Street Journal column rather than informing them directly. The fired members learned about their dismissal when they read about it online. Kennedy replaced them with eight new members, .

One of the new appointees is a staff member at the , an organization dedicated to "preventing vaccine injuries and deaths." Another is a doctor who has spoken at anti-vaccine rallies. The first action of Kennedy's reconstituted committee was to recommend against flu vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative that has been thoroughly studied and found safe but remains a focus of anti-vaccine activists.

The scientific evidence supporting COVID vaccines during pregnancy is actually quite robust. Multiple large studies have found no increased risk of , , or . Research published in leading medical journals shows that COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant women and can protect both mother and baby from serious illness.

Dr. Sangini Sheth, a Yale researcher who has studied COVID vaccines in pregnancy, noted that "there was no association between being vaccinated and having a miscarriage." A found "no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy."

The legal case now moves through federal court, where judges will decide whether Kennedy overstepped his authority. The medical groups are asking for preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop Kennedy's directive and restore the previous vaccine recommendations. They want the court to declare that Kennedy's actions violated federal law and order him to announce on social media that COVID vaccines are once again recommended for pregnant women and children.

But this lawsuit represents more than just a disagreement about one vaccine policy. It's fundamentally about how scientific decisions should be made in a democracy. Should evidence-based recommendations come from panels of experts who review data transparently, or can political appointees make unilateral decisions based on their personal beliefs?

The answer to that question will affect not just COVID vaccines, but the entire system of scientific advice that guides American health policy. As , the lead attorney for the medical groups, put it: "." The lawsuit aims to preserve what the doctors see as the boundary between politics and science in public health.

For Dr. Jane Doe and countless other pregnant women and parents across America, the outcome of this legal battle will determine whether they can access vaccines that their doctors recommend based on scientific evidence. It will decide whether expertise or ideology guides the recommendations that shape family health decisions.

The case also highlights a broader tension in American society about trust in institutions and scientific expertise. Kennedy's supporters argue that he's . His critics contend that he's undermining decades of scientific progress and putting public health at risk.

Whatever the courts ultimately decide, this lawsuit has already accomplished something remarkable: it has forced a national conversation about how we make decisions about health and safety in America. It has highlighted the usually invisible infrastructure of scientific advisory committees and shown how legal processes can be used to challenge political decisions.

The pregnant doctor who started as an anonymous plaintiff in a federal lawsuit has become a symbol of the real human cost of policy battles. Her story reminds us that behind every legal argument and political debate are real people trying to make the best decisions for their families' health and safety.

As this legal drama unfolds in the courts, it serves as a powerful reminder that in a democracy, the law provides a mechanism for challenging government decisions and protecting the role of scientific expertise in public policy. Whether that system will prove strong enough to withstand the current challenges remains to be seen, but the doctors who filed this lawsuit have made it clear they're willing to fight for what they see as the fundamental principles of evidence-based medicine.