American Academy of Pediatrics Lawsuit, Federal Court Orders HHS to Restore $12M After Alleged First Amendment Retaliation
The American Academy of Pediatrics filed a lawsuit on December 24, 2025, claiming HHS unlawfully terminated nearly $12 million in grants in retaliation for the organization’s public criticism of vaccine policy changes. On January 12, 2026, Judge Beryl Howell ruled HHS must restore the funding, saying evidence suggested the cuts may have been intended to punish AAP for its public health positions.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
AAP alleges HHS, through CDC and HRSA, retaliated against AAP for its protected speech—including advocacy for evidence-based vaccine policy—by suddenly terminating seven long-running federal grants.
The lawsuit claims this wasn’t a routine budget decision. AAP argues the terminations violated First Amendment rights to speak publicly on health policy matters.
Terminated funding supported programs including sudden unexpected infant death prevention, developmental disability and birth defect detection, rural pediatric care, adolescent mental health and substance use support, and newborn care standards.
Who Filed and Which Court
AAP, representing 67,000 pediatricians nationwide, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Democracy Forward represents AAP. Defendants include HHS, CDC, HRSA, and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Legal Claims
The lawsuit pursues First Amendment retaliation claims—when government punishes someone for exercising protected speech rights.
AAP must prove they engaged in protected speech, government took adverse action, and a causal connection exists between speech and action. AAP argues grant terminations were designed to silence public health advocacy rather than serve legitimate policy objectives.
The Evidence AAP Presented
AAP’s complaint includes timing evidence showing grants were terminated shortly after AAP publicly criticized HHS vaccine policy changes. Earlier this year, AAP joined other medical groups in filing suit against Secretary Kennedy after he changed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.
The complaint cites public statements from administration officials, including that Dr. Malone publicly stated there have to be consequences for AAP’s lawsuit challenging HHS’s vaccination policy.
AAP also showed disparate treatment—other organizations doing similar work retained grants while AAP’s were terminated. The organization noted the canceled grants have nothing to do with vaccine or gender-affirming care issues.
HHS’s Defense Arguments
HHS says the grants were canceled because programs no longer align with agency priorities. The defense argues federal agencies possess discretion to allocate funding according to policy priorities, maintaining funding decisions reflect legitimate choices rather than unconstitutional retaliation.
Current Status: Court Grants Preliminary Injunction
On January 12, 2026, Judge Howell issued a preliminary injunction ordering HHS to restore terminated grants while the lawsuit proceeds.
Judge Howell wrote this is not about whether AAP or HHS is right on vaccinations and gender-affirming care, but whether the federal government exercised power to chill public health policy debate by retaliating against a pediatrician organization focused on improving children’s health.
This preliminary injunction represents an early victory for AAP but doesn’t resolve the case on merits. Litigation continues toward a final decision.
Who May Be Affected
AAP’s 67,000 members depend partially on these federal grants for professional resources and training programs.
Without the injunction, AAP would lay off approximately 10% of total full-time employees—dozens of staff delivering children’s health services nationwide.
Parents and children benefiting from AAP programs face potential service disruptions in sudden infant death prevention, developmental disability screening, rural pediatric care, and adolescent mental health support.
If courts rule federal agencies can terminate grants to punish organizations for public health advocacy, it could chill medical professionals’ willingness to voice scientific opinions contradicting government positions.
What Affected Parties Should Know
Healthcare organizations receiving federal grants should monitor this case if they face similar situations involving grant terminations following public policy advocacy. Legal counsel specializing in healthcare law, administrative law, or constitutional law can analyze whether termination decisions may violate constitutional protections.
Professional medical associations navigating relationships with federal agencies while engaging in public health advocacy should seek legal guidance on protecting organizational interests and constitutional rights.
Federal court filings are publicly available through PACER at https://www.pacer.gov. The American Academy of Pediatrics publishes updates at https://publications.aap.org/aapnews. Democracy Forward posts case information at https://democracyforward.org. Credible legal news sources including Law360, Bloomberg Law, and Reuters provide professional coverage as the litigation progresses.
Last Updated: January 24, 2026
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice; individuals should consult qualified attorneys for guidance specific to their situations.
Have questions about institutional litigation or professional association legal matters? Share your thoughts in the comments or subscribe to stay updated on important legal developments affecting healthcare professionals.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the American Academy of Pediatrics lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges HHS unlawfully terminated nearly $12 million in federal grants to punish AAP for publicly criticizing vaccine policy changes, violating First Amendment protections.
Who filed the lawsuit against HHS and when?
The American Academy of Pediatrics filed the lawsuit on December 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Democracy Forward represents AAP.
What was the court’s decision on the AAP lawsuit?
On January 12, 2026, Judge Beryl Howell granted a preliminary injunction ordering HHS to restore the $12 million in terminated grants while the lawsuit proceeds.
Which grants did HHS terminate from AAP?
HHS terminated seven federal grants supporting sudden infant death prevention, developmental disability screening, rural pediatric care, adolescent mental health support, and newborn care standards.
What legal theory is AAP using in the lawsuit?
AAP pursues First Amendment retaliation claims, arguing HHS punished the organization for advocating evidence-based vaccine policies contradicting administration positions.
Who may be affected by the AAP lawsuit outcome?
The outcome affects AAP’s 67,000 members, healthcare providers partnering on grant-funded programs, families and children receiving services, and potentially other medical associations receiving federal funding.
What are the potential implications for professional associations?
If courts rule against HHS, it could strengthen First Amendment protections for organizations receiving federal funding while advocating public policy positions.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah