On October 6, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral argument in American Academy of Pediatrics v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As a reminder, in March, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that the reconstituted CDC vaccine advisory committee likely violated a federal requirement that it be “fairly balanced.” HHS appealed only the portion of the ruling that stayed the ACIP appointments. It did not appeal the injunction against the January 2026 memorandum that reduced the childhood immunization schedule.

The oral argument focused on the scope of the district court’s remedy and whether the plaintiffs had standing to seek it. HHS contended that the district court exceeded its authority by staying all thirteen ACIP appointments—a remedy the plaintiffs had not requested. The plaintiffs had sought only to prevent ACIP from meeting. The government also challenged the plaintiffs’ standing, arguing that staying the ACIP appointments would not remedy their alleged injuries. Because an ACIP recommendation has no legal effect unless adopted by the CDC director, HHS maintained that the district court intervened prematurely. HHS stressed that the government does not challenge the stays of the January 2026 memo or the votes already taken. HHS asked the court to vacate the stay of the ACIP appointments so the Secretary can reconstitute the ACIP and allow the committee to get back to work.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) responded that the stay does not prevent HHS from making new appointments or prohibit a lawfully constituted ACIP from meeting. AAP urged the court to affirm the district court’s stay of the thirteen ACIP appointments. It also defended the plaintiffs’ standing. According to AAP, the plaintiff organizations participate as ACIP liaison members and would waste resources engaging with an unlawfully constituted committee. They also must divert resources from their ordinary work to keep members informed about ACIP developments.

ACIP’s next regularly scheduled meeting is set to take place virtually on October 21–22, 2026. Unless the injunction is lifted or modified, we do not think ACIP can legally meet. A First Circuit decision before the scheduled meeting could determine whether the meeting may proceed.

We will continue to monitor the ACIP litigation and related vaccine policy developments. Our prior alerts are available below:

• White House Issues Executive Order on Childhood Vaccine Recommendations | Groom Law Group
• Court Stays the Updated Childhood Vaccine Recommendations, Katie Amin, Lisa Campbell, Michelle Koltov
• CDC Adopts Part of ACIP’s Updated Recommendations for Hepatitis B Vaccine for Infants, Lisa Campbell, Michelle Koltov
• ACIP Updates its Recommendation for Hepatitis B Vaccine for Infants, Lisa Campbell, Michelle Koltov
• CDC Updates Immunization Schedule to Reflect ACIP’s Recommendations | Groom Law Group
• ACIP Vaccine Meeting – Implications for Plans and Issuers | Groom Law Group