States’ Case Against RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Changes Cites Health Risk

More than a dozen states are adding to a legal battle against US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s sweeping vaccine policy changes, mounting a challenge rooted in complications the federal moves will spur with immunization and health efforts on the ground.

Kennedy’s replacement of government advisers with like-minded skeptics wary of vaccine safety and scaling back the number of shots the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends for children has spurred criticisms across the public health landscape, including a lawsuit from the American Academy of Pediatrics and similar groups.

On Feb. 24, states including California and Arizona brought their own lawsuit, urging the US District Court for the Northern District of California to take action against Kennedy’s overhaul, which they say threatens their efforts to encourage vaccinations among their population.

The US Department of Health and Human Services’ “unlawful reconstitution” of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and bypassing the panel when changing the vaccine schedule “injects immediate confusion and uncertainty into the administration of many of Plaintiff States’ public health laws and regulations,” the states told the court.

“If CDC’s childhood immunization schedule is no longer a product of lawful ACIP recommendations—and if it does not reflect scientific consensus—then states must undertake the massive administrative burden and expense of untethering their laws from CDC and ACIP.”

States, like the AAP in its lawsuit, want the court to overturn Kennedy’s actions. And while the AAP case is further along—a federal judge is currently weighing an injunction to halt Kennedy’s efforts—the states’ case against the HHS may ultimately prove stronger.

The “states have a pretty easy case for standing—this could directly affect, for example, access and uptake in their area,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California San Francisco College of the Law specializing in vaccines.

States are able to make “strong claims,” Reiss said, given many have laws invoking ACIP, while “confusion and lack of competence in the committee’s actions directly affect implementation.” She said because states administer Medicaid, they’re impacted by “potential confusion” around coverage.

“States are emphasizing the harm in deaths and diseases from dropping vaccination rates, costs for public health, and implementation costs,” Reiss said.

‘Inextricably Linked’

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard described the states’ effort as “a publicity stunt dressed up as a lawsuit,” saying Kennedy “has clear authority to make determinations on the CDC immunization schedule” and ACIP’s composition. She also said the CDC immunization schedule changes “reflect common-sense public health policy shared by peer, developed countries.”

The states, however, say Kennedy’s actions hobble their own policies and threaten to spur lower immunization rates, straining health systems with treatment for vaccine-preventable disease.

They also said in their complaint the recommendations from ACIP “are inextricably linked with state legal codes,” with almost 600 regulations and statutes across the country incorporating “recommendations by reference, often requiring states to use or consider ACIP recommendations to formulate and implement vaccine policies.”

“Many Plaintiff States will find their existing state laws compromised by CDC sidestepping ACIP and by both CDC and ACIP’s loss of reliable scientific expertise and evidence-based decision-making,” the states said.

Arizona is a co-lead plaintiff in the case. Often, ACIP and CDC standards are built into state law, such as pharmacists’ ability to administer vaccines, said Richie Taylor, communications director for the Arizona attorney general’s office. He said the CDC’s vaccine guidance will increase Medicaid and public health costs, due to more outbreaks and strains on the health system.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island faces the prospect of updating its regulatory and statutory framework for maintaining vaccine access, according to the lawsuit.

Wisconsin’s health department, which “expended substantial resources responding to confirmed cases of measles in 2025 and 2026,” will need to “divert additional resources to monitor for, detect, and respond to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses” if the CDC schedule remains in effect.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Rosie Lapowsky, a spokesperson for the governor, said the CDC schedule change means “Pennsylvania must now undertake its own vaccine initiatives to ensure Pennsylvanians have access to safe vaccines and reliable information to make their own health-care decisions.”

“Before last year, the CDC and ACIP were widely credible and run by medical experts—and Pennsylvania adopted laws and policies that referred to or incorporated their standards,” Lapowsky said. “But RFK Jr.’s embrace of vaccine conspiracy theories and rejection of medical science means that we can no longer rely on ACIP and the CDC to protect public health.”

‘Skin in the Game’

In its separate lawsuit, the AAP in February asked the court to cancel an ACIP meeting that was originally scheduled for this month. Shortly after, the HHS delayed the meeting until March.

Taylor said while Arizona’s and the AAP’s suits “can reinforce each other,” it’s “important that states establish their own record.”

“When fifteen states collectively allege that federal action is undermining critical aspects of their health systems, that carries real weight,” Taylor said.

Lawrence Gostin, a health law professor at Georgetown Law, said, “the states have a lot more skin in the game.”

AAP and others “have mostly a theoretical academic stake in all of this—they want to promote science. They want to promote health of children,” Gostin said.

States, meanwhile, face “higher costs for Medicaid” and state contributions to health insurance, because “you’ll have more people going to hospitals and more people getting sick,” Gostin said.

The case is State of California Justice Departments v. Kennedy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:26-cv-01609, 2/24/26.