To view/share as a webpage, click here [[link removed]]

[[link removed]]

California Asserts State-Level Authority
While States Challenge Federal Vaccine Policy in Court

March 8, 2026: As A Voice for Choice Advocacy previously reported, on January 5, 2025 HHS announced updates to the recommended CDC childhood and adolescent vaccination schedule. Several vaccines previously recommended for all children were moved into shared clinical decision-making or risk-based categories. No vaccines were removed from availability, and insurance coverage was stated to remain intact.

California’s Response: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) subsequently issued its own Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, maintaining previous CDC recommendations. Due to the passing of AB 144 (2025), California does not automatically adopt federal CDC recommendations. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), in coordination with the West Coast Health Alliance (WCHA), determines state vaccine policy and announced that California will align with the AAP schedule.

CDPH stated that the CDC should not have changed the vaccination schedule because it:

* Did not follow regular immunization policy recommendation processes
* Was not based on any new safety or effectiveness data
* Did not reflect any change in underlying science

Read the full CDPH statement here: [link removed] [[link removed]] . In short, California has maintained its vaccine policy by aligning with AAP rather than adopting the revised CDC categorization.

Lawsuit Suing CDC Schedule: Fifteen states have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the CDC’s January 5th decision. Although the complaint contains extensive discussion about the states’ disagreement with the federal government’s scientific conclusions, the legal relief requested is narrower: the states argue that federal officials did not follow required administrative procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and related advisory committee laws.

They are asking the court to declare the revised schedule unlawful and to block its implementation. Read the full complaint here: [link removed] [[link removed]]

Why It Could Win: Courts can invalidate agency actions if they find that required procedures were not followed or that a decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” If the court agrees that proper advisory and review processes were bypassed, the states could prevail on procedural grounds.

Why It May Not: CDC recommendations are advisory, and the federal government has broad discretion to modify guidance. The states must also show concrete legal injury to establish standing. If the court views the change as within agency authority, the challenge may fail.

AVFCA will continue to monitor developments at both the federal and state levels and provide updates as they occur.

If you found this information helpful and appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.

[link removed]

Together we can make change happen!
C
Christina Hildebrand
President/Founder
A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Inc.
[email protected] [[email protected]]
www.AVoiceForChoiceAdvocacy.org [[link removed]]
www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org [www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org]
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]
[link removed] [[link removed] ]
You are receiving this email because you have signed up on the AVFC or AVFCA website or on a sign up list in person. If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe: [link removed] .
A Voice for Choice Advocacy
530 Showers Drive, #7404
Mountain View, CA 94040
United States