"Is it your position that [Kennedy] is totally unreviewable? 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. This exchange between Judge Murphy and DOJ lawyer Belfer highlighted the core dispute over whether Kennedy possesses unlimited authority over federal vaccine policy without judicial review."
"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. This statement from the medical groups' lawyer James Oh characterized the policy changes as lacking procedural legitimacy and scientific foundation."
A legal dispute over vaccine policy authority unfolded in federal court in Boston, where the Department of Justice argued that Kennedy possesses broad authority to implement vaccine policy changes without court oversight. Judge Brian Murphy expressed skepticism about this position, questioning whether Kennedy's authority is truly unreviewable and posing a hypothetical scenario about mandating harmful vaccines. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical organizations challenged Kennedy's policy changes, arguing they were implemented without proper procedures or scientific evidence. Kennedy's lawyer characterized the medical groups' court challenge as an attempt to impose their preferred vaccine policies through litigation. The judge indicated a ruling on the injunction would be issued before a March 18 CDC vaccine advisory meeting.
#vaccine-policy-authority #judicial-review #federal-court-case #kennedy-administration #medical-organizations-challenge
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]