NY AG Sues RFK Jr Over Childhood Vaccine Rollbacks She Says 'Cut Out the Experts' and Put Children at Risk

New York has joined 15 other states in suing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore the childhood vaccine recommendations his department cut back in January.

Attorney General Letitia James announced New York's participation on Monday, 5 October 2026. The states' amended complaint, filed on Friday 2 October in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the new schedule ignored decades of scientific evidence and bypassed the expert review and public input required by law.

It asks the court to declare the schedule unlawful and to set aside Kennedy's appointments to the government's main vaccine advisory committee.

Seven Immunisations Moved off the Routine List

The changes date from January. A decision memo signed on 5 January 2026 by the then acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O'Neill, removed universal recommendations for seven immunisations: against rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19 and RSV, according to New Jersey's attorney general, who joined the earlier version of the suit.

The vaccines remain available but no longer carry a universal recommendation, having been moved into risk-based or shared clinical decision-making categories. The overhaul reduced the number of conditions covered by routine childhood recommendations from 17 to 11, CIDRAP reported.

James framed the case around the risk to children. 'For decades, these vaccines have kept millions of children out of the hospital and saved countless lives,' she said.

'Families deserve guidance grounded in science, and these abrupt changes put children's health at risk,' CBS6 Albany reported. She said the changes were forcing states to spend time and money cleaning up the confusion.

All 17 Voting Members Fired

The lawsuit also targets the advisory panel. Kennedy fired all 17 voting members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices in June 2025 and subsequently replaced them with his own appointees.

The states argue that his appointees lack the necessary expertise or qualifications, and ask the court to set aside those appointments and the committee's hepatitis B decisions.

The complaint holds Kennedy to his own words. It cites his February 2025 Senate confirmation hearing, at which he said he would leave the committee undisturbed, and accuses him of an 'idiosyncratic and unscientific hostility toward vaccines', Spectrum News reported. The defendants are Kennedy, his department, the CDC and its director, Erica Schwartz.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin have joined, along with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The amended complaint replaces the coalition's earlier suit filed in February.

A Parallel Case in Boston

The states are not the only challengers. In a separate case brought by the American Academy of Paediatrics and other medical groups, US District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction in March staying the January schedule changes.

The appointments of 13 committee members and the votes taken by the reconstituted panel followed after the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their legal claims. The government appealed, and the First Circuit was scheduled to hear arguments on 6 October.

New York has moved to insulate itself. James's office said the state has passed laws ensuring that its insurance coverage, school requirements, Medicaid rules and pharmacists' vaccination authority do not automatically follow changes made by the federal advisory committee, Finger Lakes 1 reported.

No response from HHS to the amended complaint appeared in the coverage reviewed for this article. CIDRAP has described Kennedy as a longtime vaccine critic.

Sixteen states and Pennsylvania's governor are now asking a federal judge to restore the previous recommendations, while a federal appeals court weighs whether the January changes can stand.