|
This month’s newsletter discusses lawsuits concerning ultra-processed food, vaccine policy, infectious disease control and prevention, occupational safety, and federal funding terminations. If you would like to read any of our past newsletters, please access the archive on our website here.
Ultra-processed Food
In The People of the State of California v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al (Docket No. CGC-25-631189; Superior Court for the State of California), California, acting through the San Francisco City Attorney, filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2025 against 11 major food manufacturers arguing that they knowingly designed, manufactured, marketed and sold ultra-processed foods that are addictive and dangerous to human health. The complaint alleges that the food manufacturers’ conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and untrue or misleading advertising), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (prohibits misrepresentation of goods), and is a public nuisance.
According to the complaint, ultra-processed foods currently make up 70 percent of grocery store products and half of U.S. diets, and research links these foods to adverse health impacts such as premature mortality, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and impaired mental, respiratory, and gastrointestinal health. The complaint also states that the manufacturers have created over 10,000 chemicals to use in ultra-processed foods with very few chemicals being studied for their health impacts and many likely being toxic. Additionally, California argues that tobacco companies have moved into the food manufacturing business and are using similar practices to make ultra-processed foods addictive, just like they did with tobacco. The complaint states that the food manufacturers deliberately targeted kids, especially Black and Latino kids, through unfair and deceptive marketing, in a manner similar to the approach used by tobacco companies. California further claims that defendants hid the truth about the health risks of ultra-processed food while claiming they were healthy and that they worked to deflect criticism by arguing that individual choice and a lack of physical activity were to blame for health problems.
Through their actions, California argues that the food manufacturers have created a public health crisis, one that has especially harmed children, with rates of Type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease (normally adult illnesses), increasing significantly among children since the introduction of ultra-processed foods. The complaint further describes how the unfair marketing and consumption of ultra-processed foods have led to a health crisis in San Francisco with Black, Latinx, and lower-income residents facing greater harm.
California is seeking a statewide order enjoining the defendants from further deceptive marketing and requiring them to ameliorate past harms; an order enjoining them from acting as a public nuisance in San Francisco and requiring them to pay costs; and statewide civil penalties. On January 7, 2026, defendants filed a Notice of Removal to move the case from state to federal court (Docket No. 3:26-cv-00183; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California).
Vaccine Policy
In Children’s Health Defense v. Hegseth (Docket No. 1:25-CV-04363; U.S. District Court, District of Columbia), Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the organization that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy formerly helped lead, sued Secretary Hegseth claiming that the Department of Defense (DOD) is evading the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) through a two-part strategy of denying religious accommodations to military vaccination requirements. Under RFRA, the federal government cannot substantially burden an individual’s religious exercise unless the government has a compelling interest. Additionally, the government must show that the burden it imposes is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest.
The complaint argues that DOD communications provide conflicting information on whether applicants to the military can obtain religious accommodations for vaccines despite DOD regulations allowing them. Second, the complaint argues that the process for obtaining exemptions is an empty formality, citing a final approval rate of 0.8% for the approximately 36,500 religious accommodation requests related to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. CHD argues that while multiple courts have found that DOD’s religious accommodation policy for COVID-19 vaccines violated RFRA, the DOD never implemented reforms because once the COVID-19 vaccine mandate was rescinded, the pending lawsuits were dismissed. In its RFRA claims, CHD further argues that because DOD accommodates vaccine medical exemptions, they have shown they can accommodate vaccine religious exemptions.
In addition to violating RFRA, the complaint also claims DOD’s approach violates the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. CHD highlights the recent United States Supreme Court remand in Miller et al v. McDonald et al (a case discussed in last month's newsletter, challenging whether New York’s removal of its religious exemption for vaccines violated the First Amendment’s free exercise clause) in making its claim. CHD further argues that the DOD policy of using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDCs) childhood immunization schedule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the CDC has never tested the safety of the full schedule or compressing the schedule for unvaccinated adults. Additionally, the complaint argues that the DOD policy violates the APA because of how it arbitrarily administers its religious vaccine exemption policy. Finally, CHD argues that DOD policy violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment because DOD treats medical and religious exemptions differently and because the vaccine exemption process is not clear or accessible. The lawsuit was filed on December 16, 2025, and no other actions have occurred since.
Infectious Disease Control & Prevention/Occupational Safety
In Le Soleil Child Care, LLC, et al. v. Raúl Labrador, et al. (Docket No. 1:25-cv-00695; U.S. District Court, District of Idaho) plaintiffs, a private daycare and three parents of young children, sued Idaho Attorney General and the prosecuting attorney for their county, to protect their constitutional rights and prevent irreparable harm. Their complaint challenges the Idaho Medical Freedom Act (IMFA), which took effect on July 1, 2025 and prohibits private daycares from requiring any “medical interventions” as a condition of attendance or employment. Specifically, IMFA provides that "[a] school operating in the state or a business subject to [the code] (i.e. a daycare) shall not mandate a medical intervention for any person to attend, enter campus or buildings or be employed…" and "medical intervention" is defined very broadly as "a medical procedure, treatment, device, drug, injection, medication, or medical action taken to diagnose, prevent, or cure a disease or alter the health or biological function of a person."
The original bill was drafted by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, which publicly shared its model language and tool kits for those anticipating similar efforts by their state legislature. Introduced in response to COVID-era rules, the first version of IMFA was vetoed by the Governor Brad Little because of its impact on schools. After slight amendments, one of which was to give “private and parochial schools [with] the same authority as school districts” authority to exclude students with contagious or infectious diseases, the Governor promptly signed the bill into law, signing away the state’s police powers in the process.
Plaintiffs argue that the law is unconstitutionally broad and prevents daycares from implementing basic health and safety measures, including sending home sick children or staff (including those with fevers or contagious conditions) and requiring routine childhood vaccinations. They contend the IMFA violates daycares’ due process rights to operate their business free from irrational government interference, parents’ fundamental rights to direct their children’s upbringing and protect their health, and all plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to expressive association by forcing them into childcare environments inconsistent with shared public health values. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of the IMFA, alleging it is irrational, vague, and not narrowly tailored to any legitimate or compelling government interest. The complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were filed on December 11, 2025. The lawsuit is ongoing.
Federal Funding Terminations
In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Department of Health and Human Services et al. (Docket No. 1:25-cv-04505; U.S. District Court, District of Columbia). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) alleges that the termination of nearly $12 million in federal public-health funding by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) was retaliatory based on AAP’s viewpoints defending evidence-based care and its other lawsuit filed against the federal government (AAP v. Kennedy, which we discussed in both our November and July 2025 newsletters). Specifically, AAP’s complaint alleges HHS violated the First Amendment by retaliating for a protected activity and viewpoint discrimination, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Spending Clause for unconstitutional conditions on government grants, and the Administrative Procedure Act. AAP’s First Amendment arguments are reinforced by public statements from Trump Administration officials that target AAP, including tweets from Secretary Kennedy and Children’s Health Defense, which Kennedy helped to found and lead.
AAP’s funding from HHS supports more than a dozen AAP programs that help pediatricians detect, prevent, and manage fatal and debilitating illnesses and have led to the reduction of sudden unexpected infant death, the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, and universal newborn hearing screenings. The complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order “or” a preliminary injunction were filed on December 24, 2025.
Earlier this week, on January 11, federal district Judge Howell granted AAP’s preliminary injunction, blocking HHS from cutting the nearly $12 million in funding and ordering HHS to restore the funding while the case proceeds. AAP is being represented by Democracy Forward, which wrote in its press release: “Without court intervention, AAP warned these programs would abruptly cease, staff would be laid off, and children and families across the country would lose access to life-saving health services. Today’s order prevents that immediate harm.”
| 
