US Department of Justice lawyer Isaac Belfer argued that Kennedy has the broad authority to make all of the changes he has already made and more. He claimed that the AAP and other medical groups were asking the court to “supervise vaccine policy indefinitely.”
US District Judge Brian Murphy overseeing the case in Boston appeared skeptical of the suggestion that Kennedy has seemingly limitless authority over federal vaccine policy.
“Is it your position that [Kennedy] is totally unreviewable?” Murphy asked Belfer, according to Reuters. “If the secretary said instead of getting a shot to prevent measles I think you should get a shot that gives you measles, is that unreviewable?”
“Yes,” Belfer replied.
Belfer, arguing on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, said the medical organizations were merely seeking to use the courts to enact their favored vaccine policy. But the lawyer for the groups, James Oh, countered that the vaccine policy changes—which were not carried out with typical processes and lack supporting scientific evidence—were done improperly and without reasoned decision-making.
Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes are the “actions of someone who believes he can do whatever he wants,” Oh said, according to Stat News.
Murphy indicated he would issue a ruling on the injunction before the CDC vaccine advisors plan to meet on March 18, calling it a “hard deadline.”
