The perennial question that remains unresolved: how is it that, in a serious country, in which the citizenry theoretically, albeit indirectly, dictates government policy via the ballot box, unelected judges on federal benches are allowed to effectively veto entire policies of the elected administrative branch with a stroke of the pen, rendering themselves de facto Caesars?
Related: Federal Judge: Parents Can't Opt Children Out of Public School Grooming
The same subversion of the expressed will of the electorate has happened time and time again during the current administration, and now the Deep State judiciary is rolling back crucial wins for the MAHA agenda vis-à-vis the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets vaccine policy at the CDC.
Via Children's Health Defense, March 16, 2026 (emphasis added):
A federal court in Boston today blocked a key government vaccine advisory committee from holding its scheduled meeting this week, and paused changes the committee made to vaccine recommendations under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy.
In a win for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and several other medical organizations, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy, will not meet as planned this week.
HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told The Defender in a statement that it “looks forward to this judge’s decision being overturned just like his other attempts to keep the Trump administration from governing.”
ACIP had planned to meet March 18-19 to discuss and vote on recommendations related to COVID-19 vaccine injuries, long COVID and how the committee makes its recommendations. The meeting is now stayed.
The judge in this case, Brian E. Murphy, was, as one might assume based on his ruling, appointed by Biden and came highly recommended by pharma stooge Elizabeth Warren.
Related: Elizabeth Warren DESTROYED by X Community Notes Over Pharma Corruption
Continuing:U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy’s 45-page ruling also stayed the appointment of 13 new ACIP members appointed between June 2025 and January 2026.
The ruling also stays the changes U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made in January to the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule. Those changes reduced the number of diseases for which children would receive recommended routine vaccinations from 17 to 11.
The AAP had sought an injunction. Instead, Murphy issued stays. There is a legal distinction between an injunction and a stay. An injunction typically prohibits a person or entity from doing something, while a stay pauses an action that is already ongoing or pending.
The AAP sought the injunction as part of a lawsuit they and several other medical groups filed in July 2025.
The groups sued Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women and have amended their lawsuit several times in response to new HHS and CDC policies and recommendations.
Related: In 2025, WebMD Claims COVID Vax ‘Still Crucial for Children’
The preamble to the meat of Murphy’s ruling was a bizarre (by official court document standards) tribute to the miracle of vaccines and the magnificent Public Health™ apparatus “that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government.”
From Murphy’s U.S. district court ruling (emphasis added):
“Science,” like law, “is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark 29 (1997). History is littered with once-universal truths that have since come under scrutiny. Nevertheless, science is still “the best we have.” Id.1
“Procedure is to law what scientific method is to science.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 21 (1967) (cleaned up). Although sometimes seemingly tedious, “the procedural rules which have been fashioned from the generality of due process are our best instruments for the distillation and evaluation of essential facts from the conflicting welter of data that life and our adversary methods present.” Id.
For our public health, Congress and the Executive have built—over decades—an apparatus that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government.
One extraordinary product of that apparatus has been the eradication and reduction of certain communicable diseases through the development and use of vaccines. In the words of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), “[v]accines are one of the greatest achievements of biomedical science and public health.”2 Since the rise of vaccine development and usage in the early- to mid-1900s, “[t]he United States of America [has been] one of the pioneering nations to conceptualize and implement a robust immunization system that helped the nation tackle major epidemics.
Related: Study: COVID Shots Cripple Immune System — Possibly Permanently
How does this groveling obsequiousness to the industry whose interests hang in the balance in this case convey a sense of neutrality and objectivity on the part of the court?
Furthermore, imagine the outrage from the legacy media were a Trump-appointed judge, sometime in the future, to overrule the recommendations of a Democrat-controlled CDC committee.
They’d go absolutely ballistic about Deplorables disrespecting The Science™ and killing grandmothers with the plague or whatever. Yet, they readily toss all of that feigned reverence for The Experts™ when they rule in contravention of pharmaceutical industry interests.
Weird how that works.
