|
This newsletter updates one case covered in a previous newsletter and discusses a few new cases of interest.
American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et al. (Docket No: 1:25-cv-10787)
We previously covered this case in our newsletter from July 11, 2025, right after the first complaint was filed on July 7th. We return to it in light of recent developments.
In brief, this case was filed in July in the Federal District Court in Massachusetts on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, and several other organizations as well as individuals against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and other HHS officials. The plaintiffs alleged that Kennedy acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by releasing a “Secretarial Directive” on May 27, removing the COVID-19 vaccine from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) recommended vaccine schedule for healthy children and pregnant individuals. This Directive was followed by Kennedy’s decision on June 9, 2025 to replace all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the Directive would decrease access to vaccines for pregnant individuals and children, and, thus, increase preventable health harms.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 3, 2025, claiming that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this claim and that the vaccine recommendations are merely recommendations and that “providers may still prescribe and administer the vaccine to pediatric and pregnant patients…according to their professional judgment and consistent with applicable law.” In the meantime, following an ACIP meeting, the CDC updated their recommended immunization scheduling standard in September without notice, noting that these previously routine vaccines would no longer be recommended for everyone, but should be subject to “shared clinical decision making” (SCDM).
The court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss in early October. That hearing was stayed following the federal government shutdown, which started on October 1, 2025. The plaintiffs later moved the court to reopen the case, citing its importance. On October 30, 2025, the new presiding judge, Brian Murphy, ruled that the case would proceed despite the government shutdown. The judge also gave leave for the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint,, which they did on November 5, 2025. The amended complaint addresses the new recommendations for SCDM, saying that the defendants did not provide notice or a reason to set this SCDM standard, which ultimately works against people getting vaccinations. The new complaint also provided more information on the individual plaintiffs, noting that they were either refused or otherwise prevented from getting vaccination given this new Directive. The defendants are expected to submit an amended motion to dismiss on November 17. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for December 17.
State of California et al. v. Department of Health & Human Services et al. (Docket No: 1:25-cv-12118-IT)
The plaintiffs, a group of 22 states and the District of Columbia, filed their complaint on July 29, 2025 in Federal District Court in Massachusetts, alleging unconstitutional violations of the Spending Clause. In their complaint, the plaintiffs challenge Section 71113, or the “Defund Provision,” of the 2025 Budget Bill (also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”), which the plaintiffs claim “eliminates the use of federal funds for any health care obtained at Planned Parenthood health centers.” They argue that the Defund Provision works to prevent these health centers from receiving federal Medicaid funding through state Medicaid programs “in retribution for [Planned Parenthood’s] constitutionally protected advocacy.” According to the complaint, by so doing, the Defund provision compels states “to effectuate Congress’s and the President’s unconstitutional retaliation against Planned Parenthood health centers, resulting in harm to the Plaintiff States through either the diversion of millions of state dollars from other state programs or through long-term increases in state Medicaid expenses from the delays in care that will result from the closure of Planned Parenthood health centers.” The complaint further argues that the elimination of this funding will force clinics to close or reduce their essential health services, such as “cancer screening and prevention, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STI), and family planning services.”
The plaintiff states filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on September 24, asking the court to “preliminarily enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing Section 71113 of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’” The defendants filed a Motion for Stay on October 1, noting that they could not work on this case due to the government shutdown. However, on October 8 the court denied defendants’ motion as “Plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding in this case outweighs Defendants’ interest in a stay.” Since then, the defendants filed their opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 15, to which the plaintiffs filed their reply on October 29.
The plaintiff states’ arguments are echoed in Planned Parenthood’s own lawsuit against Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS, and other officials. This complaint was filed on July 7, 2025 in the Federal District Court in Massachusetts against the Defund Provision’s withholding of federal Medicaid funds. This Planned Parenthood lawsuit is currently stayed pending appeal while awaiting a ruling from the First Circuit on the District Court’s granting of the plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Other related lawsuits can be viewed here.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
On May 19, 2025, several non-profit advocacy groups in Colorado, including Defending Education and Do No Harm, along with two doctors and a medical practice filed a complaint against Colorado state officials claiming that the provisions of a recent state law, House Bill 25-1312, which updates the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), violates the First Amendment’s free speech rights and is “impermissibly vague” in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case, Defending Education et al. v Sullivan (Docket No. 1:25-cv-01572), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
House Bill 25-1312, also known as the Kelly Loving Act, provides legal protections for transgender individuals. At issue in this case is a provision in Section 8 that amends the CADA to define “chosen name” and includes “chosen name how the individual chooses to be expressed” as protected forms of gender expression under CADA. Consequences for violating CADA include being subject to investigations, lawsuits, and fines.
Plaintiffs allege being forced to call a transgender person by their chosen name and preferred pronouns infringes on their free speech rights and “compels them to use language endorsing the State’s views on highly contested and highly political matters of sex and gender.” They further state in their filing that the law “compels Coloradans to affirm controversial beliefs about sex and gender with which they disagree” and “punish[es] disfavored speech.” Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction “barring Defendants from enforcing…” The state has responded that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit and have not made a “strong showing” for the preliminary injunction. The case is currently pending.
Consumer Investigation – New Jersey Pro-Life Organization
On June 16, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari by plaintiff, First Choice Women’s Center, in First Choice Women’s Center v. Platkin (Docket No. 24-781). First Choice Women’s Center is a nonprofit organization in New Jersey that offers pregnancy-related services through its network of centers. The organization was the subject of a New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs investigation beginning in 2023 as the state had concerns about misleading websites that may have impacted donors and clients concerning the Center’s pro-life mission, services provided, medical practices, and qualifications of staff at the organization. Specifically, the investigation identified possible discrepancies between what donors were told concerning the pro-life mission and what information was provided to potential clients on their public websites. Additionally, the investigation reviewed possible misleading medical statements and services performed by unlicensed staff.
The State of New Jersey sought internal documents from First Choice through a non-self-executing subpoena. Documents sought included advertising material, medical claims information, information on licensed personnel, and a list of donors. First Choice objected arguing that the subpoena, especially the request for donor information, would violate its constitutional rights concerning donor privacy and freedom of association. New Jersey filed a motion to compel enforcement in New Jersey Superior Court. The court denied First Choice’s motion concerning the subpoena; however, the immediate production of documents was also not ordered. The parties were instructed to negotiate the scope of the subpoena, that the constitutional arguments were to be reserved for future resolution, and donor identities should only be sought for two websites, which First Choice did not have to provide during the negotiations. First Choice then sought federal relief to again block enforcement on constitutional grounds by filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The federal suit was dismissed twice as unripe with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirming,, holding “that First Choice’s claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court.” The question before the Supreme Court is whether the subject of a state investigatory demand that has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights must first adjudicate its claim in state court.
| 
