Read the judge's comments from the RFK Jr. vaccine lawsuit

By now you have likely heard the news: a U.S. District Court Judge has blocked many of RFK Jr.’s vaccine policy changes from the last year.

Yesterday, the court issued a preliminary injunction, meaning the Plaintiffs in the case (the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical organizations) are likely to succeed in showing these changes violated the law. The result: RFK Jr.’s unilateral decision to remove multiple vaccines from the childhood vaccine schedule, the appointment of an entirely new (very unbalanced) panel of ACIP members, and all changes to vaccine policy made by those members are now put on hold. It also means this week’s highly anticipated ACIP meeting is cancelled.

I started reading the judge’s comments on his decision last night, and they were amazing. After a year of dealing with twisted rhetoric, distortion of data, ad hominem insults against doctors, and every logical fallacy in the book, the clarity and eloquence with which the judge called out this absurdity and recklessness was a very-much-needed breath of fresh air.

In case you don’t have time to read the full 45 page document, here are a few of my favorite passages.

Science is “the best we have”

In his opening remarks, the judge eloquently takes aim at one of the oldest tricks in the vaccine skeptic playbook: weaponized uncertainty. He acknowledges that science (like law) is imperfect. But it is also the best tool we have for discovering what’s true about the natural world, and we don’t get to arbitrarily dismiss its processes and procedures whenever we feel like it.

Being HHS secretary doesn’t mean you can tell children to get measles

In summarizing the arguments by both parties, the judge highlighted a particularly irrational (and humorous) argument made by RFK Jr.’s side. In an attempt to defend RFK Jr.’s decision to unilaterally change the childhood vaccine schedule without consulting ACIP (which is not how its supposed to be done), his lawyers argued that the HHS secretary’s authority to help improve public health has no “judicially manageable standards” (no legal rules to govern him by.)

Basically, they’re arguing he can do whatever he wants – and the courts don’t have the authority to reign him in. The judge shows just how absurd this argument is:

This isn’t about “freedom of speech”

In order to grant the preliminary injunction, the American Academy of Pediatrics had to show there would be harm to public health if the current ACIP panel and vaccine policies were to continue unchecked. They made compelling arguments describing the various ways these changes have harmed public health. And the judge was not impressed with the rebuttal from RFK Jr.’s side – apparently instead of directly addressing the issues raised, they simply argued that the injunction would restrain the Defendant’s speech.

Freedom of speech is central to American democracy, but has become widely misused and distorted to mean “saying anything you would like, from any platform, without any consequences.” That’s not what the First Amendment says.

To be on ACIP (CDC’s vaccine advisory panel), you need to have expertise in vaccines

The ACIP members appointed by RFK Jr. have one thing in common – not vaccine expertise, but vaccine skepticism. When I first did a deep dive on the initial group appointed, I was shocked how few had a background in vaccine science. It did my brain some good to hear a judge echo just how inappropriate this is for a committee whose sole purpose is to advise on vaccine policy:

If you have time, read the judge’s full comments here. In a world of half-truths, faulty reasoning, and generic AI prose, its eloquence and precision were a very welcome change.

Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD, is completing a combined emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she is the creator of the newsletters You Can Know Things and The Public Health Roundup. You can also find her on Instagram, Threads, and LinkedIn. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer.