Lead: On Feb. 24, 2026, a coalition of 15 states led by Democratic officials filed suit against the federal government seeking to overturn a January decision that reduced the number of diseases in the routine childhood vaccination schedule from 17 to 11. The complaint names the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and acting director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and argues the changes were not grounded in accepted science. Plaintiffs also challenge the removal or replacement of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The states say the shift will strain public health resources and increase risk to children.
- 15 states filed the lawsuit on Feb. 24, 2026; the coalition includes 14 attorneys general plus the governor of Pennsylvania.
- The suit seeks to nullify a January 2026 federal revision that cut the routine childhood vaccine list from 17 diseases to 11.
- Plaintiffs name the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the CDC with acting director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, as defendants.
- The complaint specifically challenges what it calls the “unlawful replacement” of ACIP members who advise federal vaccine policy.
- California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized that the states view the change as contrary to decades of scientific research and warned of increased disease risk and costs.
- HHS officials did not provide a public response to requests for comment at the time of reporting.
- Plaintiffs argue the administration’s actions violate administrative procedures and exceed statutory authority for setting national vaccine guidance.
Background
The federal immunization schedule has been developed over many decades through expert advisory bodies, primarily the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which reviews evidence and recommends vaccines for routine use. States typically adopt or adapt the CDC schedule for school-entry requirements and public immunization programs; differences in adoption timing and coverage have long influenced outbreak risk and budget planning at the state level. In January 2026, the administration issued a revised federal schedule that, according to the plaintiffs, removed routine recommendations for a number of previously included diseases—reducing the count from 17 to 11.
Changes to federal vaccine guidance are uncommon and normally follow extended review by independent scientific panels and public comment. The lawsuit asserts that the most recent revisions departed from that process, in part by replacing ACIP members whose expertise informed earlier schedules. The dispute therefore combines technical debates over vaccine evidence with legal questions about administrative procedure and the proper role of scientific advisors in federal health decisions.
Main Event
The states’ lawsuit, filed on Feb. 24, 2026, asks a court to set aside the January decision and to rule that procedural and legal norms were violated in producing the revised schedule. According to the complaint, plaintiffs seek both declaratory relief that the action was unlawful and injunctive relief to restore the prior schedule while the matter is litigated. The legal papers focus on process—how members of ACIP were selected or removed—and on substance, alleging the new recommendations lack adequate scientific justification.
At a news briefing announcing the suit, California Attorney General Rob Bonta framed the case as a defense of well-established public-health practice. He argued that the rollback disregards decades of evidence that routine immunization reduces disease, hospitalizations and public costs. Plaintiffs contend states will face harder choices around outbreak control and school immunization policies if federal guidance changes without a clear scientific basis.
Federal health officials did not respond to requests for comment at the time reporting. The complaint names both agency leadership and the agencies themselves to challenge administrative acts that plaintiffs say were taken without required notice, comment, or transparent scientific review. The litigation is likely to move quickly because plaintiffs emphasize immediate risks tied to childhood vaccination programs.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the case will hinge on administrative law doctrines such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to provide reasoned explanations for policy shifts and, for substantive rulemaking, to allow public notice and comment. Plaintiffs will argue the January changes lacked a sufficient administrative record and that the replacement of ACIP members impaired the integrity of the advisory process. The government may counter that advisory arrangements and technical recommendations fall within its discretion, or that the changes were supported by administrative determinations now subject to judicial deference.
From a public-health perspective, restoring or preserving broader routine recommendations affects vaccination coverage targets, school-entry rules, and procurement planning for states that purchase or distribute vaccines. Even a temporary period of uncertainty can reduce uptake, complicate clinic scheduling and strain surveillance resources if more children remain unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases. Budgetary pressures may rise for state public-health agencies if they must ramp up outbreak response or buy vaccines not previously budgeted in the revised plan.
The case also has political dimensions: it occurs in an election-year context where health policy has become polarized. That politicization may shape both public messaging and the pace of legal maneuvering, but courts generally evaluate agency action based on record evidence rather than political considerations. Internationally, U.S. vaccine policy shifts can influence global manufacturers, procurement agreements and perceptions about American public-health leadership, particularly for diseases with cross-border implications.
Comparison & Data
| Metric | Previous Federal Schedule (Pre-Jan 2026) | Revised Schedule (Jan 2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Number of routine diseases listed | 17 | 11 |
| Typical advisory process | ACIP review, public comment, CDC adoption | Administration-issued revision; plaintiffs allege altered advisory membership |
The table shows the numerical shift at the center of the dispute. While counts matter for headline comparison, the litigation will probe which specific recommendations changed and why. States’ immunization programs are calibrated to historical schedules; sudden federal revisions can force policy, budget and operational adjustments at the state level.
Reactions & Quotes
“H.H.S. Secretary R.F.K. Jr. and his C.D.C. are flouting decades of scientific research, ignoring credible medical experts, and threatening to strain state resources and make America’s children sicker.”
Rob Bonta, California Attorney General
At the Feb. 24 briefing, California’s attorney general used this language to summarize the coalition’s core claim: that the administration departed from established, evidence-based practice and increased burdens on state public-health systems.
“the unlawful replacement of members of the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices”
Plaintiffs’ complaint (excerpt)
The lawsuit itself highlights the role of advisory membership changes in the plaintiffs’ legal theory, asserting those replacements undermined the procedural legitimacy of the revised recommendations.
Unconfirmed
- The full, itemized list of which specific vaccine recommendations were removed or altered in January is still being clarified in filings and public records.
- The exact federal court and docket timing for expedited relief (if any) had not been published at the time of reporting.
- Any internal HHS or CDC deliberations that led to the January changes have not been released publicly and remain subject to discovery or agency disclosure.
Bottom Line
This lawsuit frames a consequential clash between states and the federal government over how vaccine policy is set and justified. At stake are not only immediate public-health practices and state budgets but also institutional norms about expert advisory roles and administrative procedure.
Court outcomes will depend on the administrative record and whether judges find procedural or substantive legal defects in the January revision. In the near term, states, clinicians and families will watch for court rulings, any emergency relief requests, and further clarification from HHS and the CDC about operational guidance for vaccination programs.
Sources
- New York Times — news report summarizing the lawsuit and statements (media)
- U.S. Department of Health & Human Services — federal agency (official)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — federal public-health agency (official)