|
This newsletter updates some cases we’ve covered previously and summarizes some new cases raising a wide range of public health-related issues. If you would like to read all of our past newsletters, please access the archive on our website here.
Grant Terminations:
As we alluded to its likelihood in last month’s newsletter, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision from its shadow docket in American Public Health Association et al v. National Institutes of Health et al (Docket No. 1:25-cv-10787), which was informally consolidated with Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al v. Kennedy et al (Docket No. 1:25-cv-10814) – cases we have previously discussed – regarding the termination of $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and LGBTQ+-related issues. In a 5-4 vote on August 21, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump Administration – issuing a partial stay– ruling that the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction to review the termination of the grants. In so doing, the Court relied heavily on its prior decision in Department of Education v. California, another shadow docket decision that held that claims seeking the reinstatement of terminated grants have to be brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to stay the district court’s ruling that NIH’s guidance to terminate grants that do not align with recent Executive Orders relating to DEI, gender identity and COVID-19, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Even so, the impact of this may be limited because the Court’s ruling on jurisdiction means that hundreds of previously approved grants will continue to remain unfunded unless and until plaintiffs prevail in the Court of Federal Claims. Our newsletters reviewing the lower court decisions in both of these cases in more detail can be found here and here.
Health Equity:
In Kikifer’s Entrepreneurial Academy (KEA) et al. v. Winnebago County Community Mental Health Board (WCCMHB) et al. (Docket No. 3:25-cv-50082), KEA’s Executive Director and President allege systemic racial discrimination and financial mismanagement by WCCMHB claiming that between 2022 and 2024, WCCMHB distributed over $89 million in public mental health funding, yet allocated $0 to Black-owned organizations, such as KEA. The complaint details violations of Title VI, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, and the Illinois Open Meetings Act, as well as claims of conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, conflicts of interest, legal malpractice, and gross mismanagement of public funds. The plaintiffs further allege deliberate suppression and manipulation of public records to conceal discriminatory practices and obstruct transparency.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including court-mandated reforms to ensure equitable funding, the establishment of independent oversight, and the restructuring of the WCCMHB board. This case highlights the necessity for transparent, non-discriminatory allocation of public health resources and robust oversight mechanisms to prevent systemic exclusion of marginalized communities from critical public mental health funding. On August 1st defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The case is ongoing.
Vaccine Policy:
Miranda Guzman v. State Department of Education, a case from West Virginia that we discussed in detail in a previous newsletter, has been consolidated with another lawsuit that takes the opposite side of the school vaccine debate. Unlike Guzman, which is centered around religious freedom and demands a religious exemption to the state’s school vaccine requirements, Joshua Hess v. West Virginia Department of Health asks the court for emergency relief to stop enforcement of Governor Patrick Morrisey’s executive order allowing religious and philosophical exemptions to the school vaccination requirements – an attempt to unilaterally overturn vaccine protections the legislature chose to keep in place. HHS Secretary Kennedy has recently voiced support for Governor Morrisey.
In July, the Raleigh County Circuit Court judge issued a temporary injunction in Guzman to allow the children of families suing the county to attend school without vaccinations while the case continues. In Hess, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to halt enforcement of Governor Morrisey’s executive order. A hearing for a permanent injunction for
the consolidated cases is scheduled for September 10th.
This case is an example of the political shifts happening in state vaccine policy as Secretary Kennedy continues to rapidly change federal vaccine policies and remove any scientific experts who stand in his way. In response to Kennedy’s actions, the states of Washington, Oregon, and California just announced their plans to form a “health alliance” to take scientific stewardship into their own hands in terms of reviewing the data and making vaccine recommendations for their residents. Immediately following this announcement, Florida’s surgeon general declared the state would end all vaccine mandates, including for children to attend schools. Whether – or more likely when – these state moves will spark any litigation is to be seen.
Occupational Health:
In City of Peabody, Massachusetts v. 3M Company et al. (Docket No. 0:25-cv-02083), the City of Peabody, on behalf of itself and similarly situated municipalities, filed a class action complaint on May 13, 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against a consortium of manufacturers and distributors of firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and others. The complaint alleges that these defendants knowingly manufactured, marketed, and sold firefighter turnout gear contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA and PFOS, without adequate disclosure or warning regarding the associated health risks. PFAS are highly toxic, persistent chemicals linked to increased cancer risk and other serious health effects. Here, plaintiffs assert that the defendants were aware of these dangers for decades but concealed this information and misrepresented the safety of their products.
The plaintiff seeks class-wide relief, including the removal and proper disposal of PFAS-contaminated PPE, compensation for the cost of replacing such gear with PFAS-free alternatives, and exemplary damages for willful statutory violations. The complaint underscores significant public health implications, noting the occupational hazard posed by PFAS exposure through routine use, cleaning, and storage of contaminated gear and the elevated cancer rates among firefighters. This case is ongoing, but notably at least 12 personal injury cases have been brought against these same manufacturers by individual firefighters.[1]
Moving forward, we will be publishing our newsletter once a month. See you in October!
[1] See, Robert Korter v. 3M Company et al., Glenn Gallon v. 3M Company et al., Ralph Austin, II v. 3M Company et al., Lawrence Hall v. 3M Company et al., Efren Madamba v. 3M Company et al., Collis Harols Latimore v. 3M Company et al., Jeffery Porter v. 3M Company et al., Roger Maynard v. 3M Company et al., Paul Pender v. 3M Company et al., Andrew Quinn v. 3M Company et al., Atlas Ali v. 3M Company et al., Joseph Matrisciano v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co) et al.
| 
