Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to revise U.S. immunization policies are set to go before a federal judge in Boston who previously has drawn President Donald Trump's criticism for rulings affecting his administration's policies on multiple fronts.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy on Friday is due to hold a hearing in a legal challenge by medical groups that argue Kennedy and the agencies he oversees are reshaping federal policies in ways that could increase barriers to getting vaccinated, contribute to distrust in vaccines and reduce immunization rates.
Kennedy, who has for years questioned aspects of vaccine safety and efficacy, was appointed by the Republican president last year as the U.S. government's top health official. Critics of his approach say his actions on vaccines and other health matters could negatively affect public health outcomes.
Murphy was appointed by Democrat President Joe Biden, confirmed by the U.S. Senate and joined the federal bench in Massachusetts in December 2024, the month before Trump returned to the presidency.
Murphy has faced criticism from Trump's administration after issuing a series of rulings that blocked key parts of his immigration agenda, prevented reductions in funding for federal research and halted efforts to stop further development of offshore wind energy.
The judge is a former public defender who previously ran a small criminal defense law firm based in Worcester, Massachusetts.
He told lawyers at an event last week he "had not anticipated some of the more nationwide cases that have been a part of the practice, here in Massachusetts especially."
Cases with national implications have increasingly been filed before Massachusetts-based judges like Murphy, as litigants challenging Trump administration policies have brought cases in the federal court in Boston, where many judges were appointed by Democrat presidents.
At Friday's hearing, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other plaintiffs are expected to ask Murphy to issue a preliminary injunction that would prevent the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from implementing a revised childhood immunization schedule and block Kennedy's appointed vaccine advisory panel from holding its February 25-26 meeting.
They argue the CDC acted unlawfully when on January 5 it reduced the number of routinely recommended childhood vaccinations to 11 and adjusted the immunization recommendations for six diseases, including rotavirus, influenza and hepatitis A.
They also are challenging Kennedy's decision last year to remove and replace all 17 independent experts who previously had served on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, whose recommendations help guide U.S. vaccine practices.
The plaintiffs said that resulted in a panel composed largely of individuals who have expressed skepticism about certain vaccines and who were appointed because their views aligned with Kennedy’s.
Murphy in a ruling last month allowing the case to proceed said those allegations were "sufficient to plausibly suggest the committee is neither fairly balanced nor free of inappropriate influence," in violation of the requirements for such panels set out in a U.S. law called the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Justice Department lawyers argue that the plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered ban on the Department of Health and Human Services "receiving and giving advice on vaccines." They say the CDC's guidance on vaccines is a matter of agency discretion, and that Congress in requiring "balance" for the panel meant employment status and professional background, making it irrelevant if most of its members now hold anti-vaccine views.
The reconstituted ACIP panel voted in September in favor of ending the U.S. government's broad recommendation for COVID-19 shots, instead recommending patients consult their doctors. It then voted in December to remove the broad recommendation that all newborns receive a hepatitis B vaccine. The plaintiffs want those votes and others voided.
Public health experts have said vaccines play an important role in controlling infectious diseases, preventing deaths annually and lowering healthcare costs. Kennedy has said vaccine safety data contains shortcomings and has claimed vaccines are responsible for various health issues.
The public health groups argued that the newly adopted U.S. changes could reduce vaccination rates for shots that have long relied on clear and population-wide guidance, particularly in busy primary-care settings where default recommendations influence uptake.
Another Trump-related case Murphy has handled involved a lawsuit by immigrant rights advocates seeking to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own without allowing them to raise concerns about potential persecution or torture.
Murphy issued and enforced a court order to restrict the administration's efforts to deport migrants of other nationalities to countries such as South Sudan, Libya and El Salvador. Trump derided Murphy as "out of control," and White House advisor Stephen Miller called the judge a "lunatic."
At the administration's urging, the Supreme Court intervened twice, lifting Murphy's injunction and clearing the way for the deportation of several men to South Sudan.
Murphy has indicated he is open to ruling against this "third country" deportation policy again as the case proceeds, and he has continued to issue rulings that have challenged aspects of the Trump administration’s policies.
In October, Murphy ruled that the Pentagon's significant cuts to federal research funding for universities were unlawful.
In January, the judge allowed the Vineyard Wind joint venture to resume its Massachusetts offshore wind project, one of five judicial rulings nationwide that prevented the administration from halting wind projects on national security grounds.
Days later, Murphy issued an order temporarily blocking the administration from ending temporary deportation protections covering more than 5,000 Ethiopians living in the United States.
"I'm sure when you imagined your first months on the bench, you expected a quiet start, where you'd learn the ropes," Democrat U.S. Senator Ed Markey said in video remarks played at Murphy's formal swearing-in ceremony in September. "But as the saying goes, sometimes the judiciary has plans for you."
© 2026 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.