The Trump administration has requested an expedited appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked a series of decisions on vaccines made by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including rescinding routine recommendations for immunizations against a half-dozen childhood diseases.
Mr. Kennedy announced in a social media post on Friday that the administration had filed the motion to expedite appeal so that federal vaccine advisers could meet to decide whether to recommend shots before the fall flu season.
The move is the latest development in a lawsuit brought by six medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. The suit contended that Mr. Kennedy and his appointees to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had made “arbitrary and capricious” changes to the childhood vaccine schedule.
It also argued that the panelists Mr. Kennedy appointed to the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, a panel of outside experts, did not have the qualifications to recommend vaccinations and that their decisions endangered the health of Americans.
The ruling, delivered on March 16 by a federal judge in Massachusetts, temporarily blocked Mr. Kennedy’s policies while the trial continued. It froze all decisions made by the panelists Mr. Kennedy had appointed and prevented the committee from meeting as scheduled.
Friday’s announcement is the latest sign that the administration is seeking to revive the committee. Last month, President Trump issued an executive order urging the C.D.C. and the committee to align their recommendations for childhood vaccinations with those of peer countries. Separately, Mr. Kennedy’s office reestablished the committee’s charter.
“The 2026-2027 respiratory virus season (i.e., R.S.V., influenza, Covid) begins in the fall, and while the A.C.I.P. cannot act, no newly licensed or reformulated vaccine for those conditions can be added to the immunization schedule,” the administration argued in its motion, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Richard Hughes, a lawyer for the medical organizations, said in a statement that the administration’s motion was a “misleading attempt to shift blame for what Secretary Kennedy broke.”
“We will oppose his motion to expedite appeal because we refuse to pave the way for his further destruction,” Mr. Hughes said.
Vaccine recommendations have historically been made by A.C.I.P. members after careful review of the benefits and potential risks, in a process that can take months or years. Last June, Mr. Kennedy fired all 17 previous members of the committee and named new ones, many of whom shared his skepticism of vaccines.
Over three meetings, the new panelists rescinded several recommendations for childhood shots, including the immunization of all newborns against hepatitis B, a highly infectious virus that can severely damage the liver.
Then, in January, bypassing the committee entirely, the acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appointed by Mr. Kennedy, announced a new schedule for childhood vaccines, which cut the number of diseases against which children are routinely immunized to 11 from 17.
In his decision, Judge Brian Murphy, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, noted that vaccine recommendations had historically followed “a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements.”
But, he added, “unfortunately, the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions.”
Only six of the panelists Mr. Kennedy appointed “appear to have any meaningful experience in vaccines — the very focus of A.C.I.P.,” the judge said.
Immediately after the ruling, the Trump administration indicated it would appeal. On April 23, the Justice Department instead asked the court to halt the case while an appeal was pending, arguing that continuing the case “wastes scarce taxpayer resources” and that compiling administrative records required by the court “would divert agency employees from other important responsibilities in furtherance of the public health.” Then, on April 29, the administration filed its intent to appeal.
The court’s request for extensive records may indeed be what spurred the administration to appeal, said Dorit Reiss, an expert on vaccine policy and law at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.
“One reason for asking for a halt and filing the appeal may be that they did not want to give the information, or the trial was going poorly, and they wanted to put that on hold,” she said.
