February 13, 2026
This week’s newsletter discusses lawsuits concerning vaccine recommendations, racial bias in healthcare, and funding for gender affirming care. There is also a job announcement and a brief survey at the end. If you would like to read any of our past newsletters, please access the archive on our website here.
Childhood Vaccine Schedules
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed Shaw et al. v. American Academy of Pediatrics (Docket No. 1:26-cv-00171, U.S. District Court of D.C.), accusing the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of engaging in “a decades-long racketeering scheme to defraud American families about the safety of the childhood vaccine schedule.” CHD, the anti-vaccine group founded by U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary RFK Jr., claims the AAP violated the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal law targeting organized criminal activity, by participating in an “enterprise” with vaccine manufacturers and financially rewarding pediatricians who achieve high vaccination rates.
CHD alleges that AAP blocked safety studies on the cumulative vaccine schedule and published theoretical calculations about the safety of vaccines. CHD further claims that fraud occurred when AAP published a journal article noting that infants could generate antibody responses to 10,000 vaccines at once, in reply to a question about the safety of multiple vaccines being given to children. CHD argues that AAP’s response discussed a theoretical immunological response but failed to address the underlying question from parents about the cumulative impacts of the additional ingredients in vaccines on children’s bodies. Additionally, CHD argues that AAP asked their 67,000 member pediatricians to recite this “speculative calculation” of 10,000 vaccines to concerned parents, and that AAP shared false scientific information about the safety of vaccines. The complaint also asserts that AAP serves as the “racketeering enterprise’s distribution network” by ignoring studies that might reveal connections between vaccine schedule expansion and chronic disease, distributing the Red Book (AAP’s recommended child and adolescent immunization schedule), disciplining physicians who deviate from AAP guidelines, and issuing allegedly “false and alarmist statements” about Secretary Kennedy’s new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations. CHD additionally compares AAP’s actions to the tobacco industry’s tactics in denying known health risks and concealing adverse findings.
In addition to these claims, the complaint references American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et al., a lawsuit that started as a challenge to the federal government’s actions to alter COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and replace key members of ACIP. We previously covered this case in our November, July, and Jan. 30 newsletters. CHD says AAP and its “enterprise associates” have controlled federal vaccine policy for decades and furthered their financial gains through membership on ACIP, and that AAP v. Kennedy is their attempt to restore these financial and institutional relationships and maintain the “enterprise.”
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that “no studies have established the safety of the entire childhood immunization schedule” and that AAP’s safety claims and physician incentive programs are actionable under RICO. They further request an injunction requiring AAP to publish corrective statements about their lack of comprehensive safety testing for vaccines. The lawsuit was filed on January 21, 2026, with an answer from AAP due February 23, 2026.
The same day CHD filed its RICO lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into an alleged "multi-level, multi-industry scheme" to determine if pediatricians, insurance companies, and vaccine manufacturers have failed to disclose financial incentives connected to the administration of childhood vaccines. Paxton alleges that children are being denied medical care based on vaccination status, and that this investigation aligns with the Trump Administration's childhood vaccine schedule changes and the "Make America Healthy Again" agenda.
Racial Bias in Kidney Transplantation
In Thompson v. UMass Memorial Medical Center (Docket No. 3:25-cv-30216, U.S. District Court of Massachusetts), Mark Thompson filed a lawsuit on December 24, 2025, against UMass Memorial Medical Center (UMass) on behalf of himself and Black kidney disease patients since 2000 at the hospital. The suit argues that the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) (the organization that controls the national transplant waiting list) and its partner transplant hospitals, including UMass, used a discriminatory race-based coefficient which artificially increases observed kidney function (eGFR) scores for Black kidney disease patients, making them less likely to qualify for transplants. Thompson was first diagnosed with polycystic kidney disease in or around 2007 or 2008 where his condition was monitored and eGFR score was regularly measured. He claims that because he is Black, UMass adjusted his eGFR score upward, which delayed his qualification for the national kidney waitlist by 10 months. He alleges that on September 12, 2016, his kidney function declined to the point if he were White, his eGFR scores would have qualified him to join the waitlist. According to the complaint, UNOS admitted to the racially discriminatory nature of the coefficient in 2020 and in June 2022 approved a measure requiring transplant hospitals to use a race-neutral coefficient. UNOS also required hospitals to adjust Black patient wait-time using the new coefficient.
The complaint alleges UMass violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Massachusetts law because of its use of the discriminatory race-based coefficient which resulted in Thompson not receiving a kidney transplant and sustaining economic loss and emotional distress.
Thompson is seeking damages in compensation for the economic and personal injuries suffered; punitive and exemplary damages; statutory damages; pre-judgment interest; and attorney’s fees and costs. On January 15, 2026, Judge Mastroianni granted UMass’s motion for an extension of time to file its responsive pleading.
Funding Cuts Related to Gender Affirming Care
In State of Oregon et al v. Kennedy et al. (Docket No. 6:25-cv-02409, U.S. District Court of Oregon), the State of Oregon, nineteen other states, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania Governor, Josh Shapiro, are claiming a declaration issued by HHS and Secretary RFK Jr. (Kennedy) that purports to establish a nationwide healthcare quality standard governing the treatment of gender dysphoria in children and teens is unlawful.
The complaint, filed on December 23, 2025, states that on December 18, 2025, Secretary Kennedy issued a declaration titled “RE: Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents,” which allows HHS to bar healthcare providers and institutions from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs (FHCPs) if they provide gender affirming care. Specifically, the declaration will exclude any entity from FHCPs if they provide “puberty-suppressing hormones, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures.”
Plaintiffs assert multiple claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the declaration is both procedurally and substantively defective and unlawful. First, Plaintiffs allege that the declaration violates Medicare notice and comment requirements because when HHS seeks to change a substantive legal standard under the Medicare Act, it must first allow the public 60 days to comment on the proposed regulation. Second, Plaintiffs allege that the declaration did not follow other required procedures. Third, Plaintiffs also allege the declaration exceeds the Secretary's statutory authority, because it purports to set a national standard of care even though there is no statute that permits the Secretary of HHS to unilaterally declare a treatment as not safe or effective. Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that the declaration conflicts with multiple statutory requirements of the Medicaid Act. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the declaration is arbitrary and capricious because it departs from past practices, fails to include consideration of the provider shortage problem that the declaration creates, and does not include consideration of reasonable alternatives.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to rule that declaration is unlawful and set aside and to postpone its effective date pending the lawsuit. The case is ongoing and with Defendant’s response to the motion for summary judgement due on February 10, 2026.
This case coincides with the American Medical Association and American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ recent statements, recommending that physicians delay gender-related surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.
We’re Hiring! PHLW is hiring a Project Coordinator to work on our grant-funded program, Advancing Public Health & Health Equity in the Courts. Please share widely with your networks!
Partner With Us! Please take this survey to let us know about local and state cases impacting public health or health equity, and to help us build our network of outside counsel.