Maryland Attorney General Joins Multistate Lawsuit Against Trump Administration’s Vaccine Schedule Overhaul

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown is among a coalition of state officials challenging recent changes to the nation’s childhood immunization schedule, as detailed in a press release from the Maryland Attorney General’s office. The lawsuit targets Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Acting CDC Director Jay Bhattacharya, and the respective federal agencies, alleging a disregard for federal law and scientific evidence in altering federal childhood immunization policies. The core of the challenge lies in a January 5, 2026, CDC “Decision Memo” that downgraded the recommended status of seven childhood vaccines—those for rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)—from universally recommended to a lesser status. This action, along with the replacement of officials on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is seen by the plaintiff states as a departure from established public health protocols and potentially endangering children.

The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration’s modifications to the childhood vaccine schedule will create confusion for parents regarding necessary immunizations for their children’s health and safety. As a consequence, a decrease in vaccination rates could lead to an increase in preventable and potentially deadly diseases spreading through childcare settings and schools, thereby impacting the well-being of families. This legal action is a direct response to what the Maryland Attorney General’s office describes as “junk science and conspiracy theories” influencing federal policy.

Routine childhood vaccinations have been credited with significant public health achievements. Between 1994 and 2023, routine childhood immunizations are estimated to have prevented approximately 508 million cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and over 1.1 million deaths in the United States. These preventative measures have also generated substantial societal savings, estimated at $2.7 trillion. The effectiveness of these vaccination programs has largely been attributed to the guidance of medical scholars and public health experts serving on the ACIP, who have established a science-based vaccination schedule that federal agencies, states, and parents have historically relied upon.

A key point of contention in the lawsuit is the June 2025 dismissal of all 17 voting members of the ACIP and their replacement with individuals who allegedly lack the requisite scientific qualifications, as stipulated by the ACIP’s charter and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The complaint alleges that a majority of the current ACIP members do not possess the necessary expertise or professional background for their roles, and many have publicly voiced opinions that align with Secretary Kennedy’s known opposition to vaccines.

Further exacerbating concerns, the reconstituted ACIP reportedly reversed nearly three decades of CDC policy in December 2025 by eliminating the recommendation for a universal hepatitis B birth dose. This vaccine is highly effective in preventing perinatal infection when administered shortly after birth. The CDC’s subsequent actions, including the January 5, 2026, “Decision Memo” signed by then-Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill, are criticized for lacking a medical or scientific basis.

The “Decision Memo” is described as being based on superficial comparisons to other countries, particularly Denmark, while overlooking significant differences between those nations and the United States. The lawsuit argues that these comparisons disregard the extensive evidence supporting the effectiveness of the previous CDC childhood immunization schedule. Additionally, the plaintiff states highlight that the instruction to “discuss with your clinician,” a common recommendation in the new policy, can present a barrier for the more than 100 million Americans who lack regular access to primary care, unlike individuals in countries with universal healthcare systems.

According to the lawsuit, the potential consequences of lower vaccination rates are projected to include a rise in infectious diseases. For states like Maryland, this could translate into increased strain on Medicaid programs and public health systems, greater expenditure on combating outbreaks and misinformation, and a diversion of resources needed to align state laws and guidance with federal recommendations that are now deemed untrustworthy. The anticipated increase in acute care needs is expected to burden state funds and resources, potentially leading to more claims submitted to programs like Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Maryland Children’s Health Program (MCHP). The Maryland Department of Health has already reportedly increased its efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy stemming from these federal changes, employing enhanced educational initiatives on social media, state websites, and public events.

Maryland has also invested considerable effort in recent years to boost the uptake of RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies within the state. The lawsuit asserts that vaccines previously recommended by the CDC’s pre-Kennedy immunization schedule remain safe and effective and are crucial for protecting children and public health. The plaintiff states are seeking a court declaration that the new immunization schedule and the appointments to the ACIP are unlawful, and they aim to have both the schedule and the appointments vacated and set aside.

In January, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O’Neill, acting as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), accepted recommendations stemming from a comprehensive scientific assessment of current U.S. childhood vaccination practices. This review was initiated by a Presidential Memorandum issued in December 2025, which tasked the Secretary of HHS and the Acting Director of the CDC with evaluating the vaccination schedules and underlying scientific evidence of comparable developed countries. The aim was to update the U.S. schedule if more effective approaches were identified abroad, while ensuring continued access to existing vaccines.

Following consultations with health ministries in peer nations and a thorough review of the assessment’s findings, CDC Acting Director O’Neill has formally endorsed the recommendations. This decision involves directing the CDC to proceed with implementation. The scientific assessment, which compared U.S. immunization recommendations with those of 20 peer nations, revealed that the United States is an outlier among developed countries in the number of diseases covered by its routine childhood vaccination schedule and the total number of recommended doses. Despite this, the assessment found that the U.S. does not achieve higher vaccination rates than these comparable nations.

The assessment highlighted that many peer countries, which recommend fewer routine vaccines, achieve strong child health outcomes and maintain high vaccination rates by fostering public trust and utilizing education, rather than through mandates. For instance, in 2024, the U.S. recommended more childhood vaccines than any other peer nation, and significantly more doses than some European countries. Denmark, at the lower end of the spectrum, immunizes children against 10 diseases, compared to the 18 diseases for which protection was recommended in the U.S. in 2024.

Under the accepted recommendations, the CDC will continue to categorize the childhood immunization schedule into three distinct areas, all of which will remain covered by insurance without cost-sharing. These categories are: immunizations recommended for all children, immunizations recommended for specific high-risk groups or populations, and immunizations based on shared clinical decision-making. The first category will encompass vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), pneumococcal disease, human papillomavirus (HPV), and varicella (chickenpox).

The review also documented a notable decrease in public trust in health care institutions between 2020 and 2024. This decline coincided with falling childhood vaccination rates and an increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. The accepted recommendations acknowledge the necessity for more robust scientific research, including placebo-controlled randomized trials and long-term observational studies, to better understand the benefits, risks, and outcomes associated with vaccines. Federal health agencies are being called upon to fund this high-standard scientific research for all vaccines included in the schedule. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC will collaborate with state health agencies, physician organizations, and other partners to outline and execute the next steps for implementation. This will also involve educating parents and healthcare providers about the revised immunization schedules.

Attorney General Brown’s participation in this lawsuit is joined by the attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office and the CDC.

---