A Department of Justice lawyer told a federal judge Wednesday that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. holds authority over the nation’s vaccine policies so broad it is effectively beyond judicial review, including the theoretical power to advise Americans to deliberately expose themselves to infectious diseases.
The argument came during a hearing on a lawsuit filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, several other medical organizations, and three anonymous women. The case challenges multiple vaccine policy decisions Kennedy has made since taking office.
What the lawsuit targets
The plaintiffs are contesting a specific set of actions:
- Unilateral changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations
- The dismissal of all 17 expert vaccine advisors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who were replaced with advisors holding anti-vaccine positions
- A restructuring of the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, reducing recommended vaccinations from 17 to 11, modeled on the schedule used in Denmark
The groups are seeking a preliminary injunction to block these changes and prevent the newly appointed advisors from convening. Their next scheduled meeting is March 18–19.
The government’s position
DOJ lawyer Isaac Belfer, representing the Department of Health and Human Services, argued that Kennedy holds sweeping statutory authority over federal vaccine policy and that the plaintiffs were essentially asking the court to “supervise vaccine policy indefinitely.”
US District Judge Brian Murphy, presiding in Boston, tested that claim directly. He asked Belfer whether Kennedy’s authority would extend to recommending that people receive a shot that gives them measles rather than preventing it. Belfer answered: “Yes.”
The exchange laid bare the outer boundary of the government’s legal theory. According to that position, the health secretary’s discretion over vaccine recommendations is not subject to meaningful judicial check, regardless of the content or consequences of those recommendations.
The plaintiffs’ counter
Attorney James Oh, representing the medical groups, argued that the policy changes were carried out without the standard regulatory processes and without supporting scientific evidence. The changes represent “the actions of someone who believes he can do whatever he wants,” Oh said, according to Stat News.
Oh’s argument centers not on disagreement with any particular policy outcome, but on the manner in which the changes were made. The absence of reasoned decision-making, he contended, makes those actions legally vulnerable.
What comes next
Judge Murphy signaled he would issue a ruling on the injunction request before the CDC advisory panel’s March 18 meeting, describing that date as a “hard deadline.” His skepticism toward the government’s position was visible during the hearing, though no ruling has been issued.
The case puts a sharp legal question before the federal courts: whether executive authority over public health guidance has any functional limits, and who, if anyone, has standing to enforce them. The answer Murphy delivers could have lasting consequences for how federal vaccine policy is made and contested.
Photo by Blogging Guide on Unsplash
This article is a curated summary based on third-party sources. Source: Read the original article
