U.S. Justice Department lawyer Isaac Belfer argued that Kennedy had broad authority to make all the changes already made and even more. He claimed that the AAP and other medical groups were asking the court to “indefinitely monitor vaccine policy”.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who is overseeing the case in Boston, appeared skeptical of the suggestion that Kennedy has unlimited authority over federal vaccine policy.
“Is this your position? [Kennedy] Isn’t this completely reviewable? Murphy asked Belfer, according to Reuters. “If the secretary said instead of taking a pill to prevent measles I think you should take a pill that will prevent you from getting measles, isn’t that reviewable?”
“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 enforce their preferred vaccine policy. But the groups’ attorney, James Oh, countered that the vaccine policy changes — which were not made with specific procedures and lacked scientific evidence — were made improperly and without a rational decision.
According to Stat News, Oh said Kennedy’s vaccine policy changes are “the actions of someone who believes he can do whatever he wants.”
Murphy indicated he would issue a decision on the injunction before a meeting of CDC vaccine advisors on March 18, calling it a “tough deadline.”
<a href