March 27, 2026
This week’s newsletter includes litigation updates concerning gender-affirming care and protected speech, restrictions for SNAP benefits in some states, and a win for childhood vaccines. To read any of our previous newsletters, please find our archive here.
AAP v. Kennedy Update: A Win for Public Health
On March 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued a wide-ranging stay in American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et al. in favor of the Plaintiffs. This ruling places CDC's recent childhood vaccine schedule changes and reconstitution of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on hold. As we covered in previous newsletters (November, July, January 30, February 13), AAP challenged (1) Secretary Kennedy's May 2025 order that the CDC stop recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women and healthy children, (2) the reconstitution of ACIP, (3) the three votes ACIP took in 2025, and (4) the January 2026 memorandum that revised CDC's childhood immunization schedule, lowering seven vaccines from a status of universal recommendation to one of shared clinical decision making. Judge Murphy's decision highlights that the Government bypassed all procedural requirements, abandoning scientific knowledge and expertise, and failed to select members of the ACIP with expertise and backgrounds required by statute.
Northeastern's Center for Health Policy and Law (CHPL) and partners submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Defend Public Health in AAP v. Kennedy, which focused on invalidating the January 2026 Høeg/Kuldorff Assessment that HHS relied upon to alter the childhood vaccine schedule, arguing it employed no generally accepted scientific methodology and contained misleading comparisons to other countries. This brief was drafted by Professor Wendy Parmet, faculty co-director of CHPL; Professor Dorit Reiss of UC Law San Francisco; and Shannon Rempe, Program Director for CHPL's Advancing Public Health and Health Equity in the Courts program, in collaboration with epidemiologists and vaccine experts at Defend Public Health and attorneys from Hooper, Lundy & Bookman.
This is a meaningful victory for public health. We will continue to monitor this case, as the Department of Justice may appeal Judge Murphy's decision.
Medical Speech as Protected Speech
In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Uthmeier (Docket No. 1:26-cv-02401, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois), on March 4, 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) filed its counter lawsuit to the one filed late last year by Florida Attorney General, James Uthmeier. AAP alleges that AG Uthmeier's lawsuit constitutes unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
The AG’s lawsuit, filed on December 9, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in St. Lucie County (Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. World Professional Association for Transgender Health, Endocrine Society and American Academy of Pediatrics), alleges that AAP, along with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and racketeering under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Florida RICO) by publishing and promoting clinical guidelines supporting gender-affirming care for minors.
AAP argues that the AG’s lawsuit is a pretextual use of state enforcement power to punish AAP for its protected scientific and medical speech, including its 2018 Policy Statement, “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents,” reaffirmed in 2023, and its advocacy activities such as submitting public comments in rulemaking proceedings and filing amicus briefs. AAP contends that its clinical guidance is noncommercial, freely available, and does not promote specific treatments, clinicians, or services, and therefore falls outside the scope of both FDUTPA and Florida RICO. AAP further argues that the FDUTPA claim is time-barred, as it is predicated on the 2018 Policy Statement, published seven years before the Florida action was filed. AAP also alleges that the timing of the Florida lawsuit which was filed on the same day as Florida’s special elections and five days after it was found that the AG had been implicated in a Medicaid fraud investigation, alongside the AG's own public statements that he wanted to “hurt AAP in their wallet” and “end gender-affirming care for once and for all,” demonstrate that the action was politically motivated rather than a legitimate law enforcement effort. As of the federal filing date, the AG had not served AAP in the Florida proceeding, despite more than two months having passed.
AAP brings two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) First Amendment retaliation for protected speech and petition activity, and (2) First Amendment viewpoint discrimination. AAP requests that the court declare the Florida AG's action unconstitutional and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the AG from pursuing the state court lawsuit or otherwise interfering with AAP's First Amendment rights. On March 19, 2026, AAP filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The case is ongoing.
The Florida AG’s case is one of several coordinated governmental actions targeting AAP, WPATH, and the Endocrine Society over their support for evidence-based gender-affirming care, which we partially covered in our March 13 newsletter. The Federal Trade Commission issued Civil Investigative Demands to all three organizations in January 2026, prompting parallel First and Fourth Amendment lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: AAP v. FTC (1:26-cv-00508), Endocrine Society v. FTC (1:26-cv-00512), and WPATH v. FTC (1:26-cv-00532).
Restrictions to SNAP benefits
In Aragon et al. v. Rollins et al. (Docket No. 1:26-cv-00861, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), filed on March 11, 2026, five low-income individuals are suing Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for their pilot program that allows states to restrict benefits available under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In 2025, the USDA began a new program that allows state-by-state Food Restriction Waivers that restrict the purchase of items such as sugary drinks and candy. Plaintiffs allege USDA’s action exceeded its statutory authority by approving the food restrictions and allowing pilot projects that lack adequate evaluation methods.
The named Plaintiffs are SNAP recipients residing in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, each alleging they need access to the restricted food items to maintain their health and food security. One plaintiff, living with in Colorado with Type 1 diabetes, is now unable to use SNAP benefits to purchase the sugary beverages she says she relies on to manage her blood sugar while at work. Another plaintiff is the full-time caretaker for her daughter who lives with multiple disabilities that severely limits the foods she can eat; under Tennessee's restrictions, the plaintiff is concerned she cannot use SNAP to buy most of the foods her daughter is able to eat.
Plaintiffs claim that these waivers are a significant overreach and endanger SNAP recipients' access to essential foods and could threaten retailer participation. Federal statute 7 U.S.C. § 2012(k) defines “food” for purposes of SNAP as “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods, or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.” Plaintiffs claim that this consistent definition of “food” across the country has provided clarity to SNAP recipients and retailers regarding which products can or cannot be purchased with SNAP benefits. They allege that with these changes on sugary foods that vary by state, it will be impossible for retailers to maintain absolute compliance with the waivers, risking their status as a SNAP-authorized store and worsening food deserts.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the USDA's approval of the food restriction waivers violates the Administrative Procedures Act and Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, a postponement of the effective date of the challenged food restriction waivers, an injunction of the continued application of the waivers, and to set aside the USDA's approval of the food restriction waivers. Defendants have yet to respond to the complaint.
We’re Hiring! The Center for Health Policy and Law is seeking a Program Director for the Salus Populi project. Please share widely with your networks, or apply today!
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.