Arizona Joins Multistate Lawsuit Challenging Federal Childhood Vaccine Recommendation Changes

March 6, 2026

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes co-leads a legal effort to block CDC vaccine guideline rollbacks that shapes U.S. immunization policy.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced last week that she is co-leading a lawsuit that aims to restore the federal childhood vaccine recommendations after they were overhauled by the federal government earlier this year.


Alongside more than a dozen other state attorney generals, Mayes is requesting the judge block the new childhood vaccine recommendations and reverse recent federal panel changes.


What Changed — and Why It's Being Challenged


In January, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reduced the total number of vaccines recommended for all children by nearly half. Vaccines no longer included in the CDC's recommendations include those for preventing the flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, certain forms of meningitis, and RSV.


The lawsuit, filed jointly with California Attorney General General Rob Bonta, accuses the defendants of violating federal law and disregarding scientific evidence and expert consensus in its decision to significantly change the immunization schedule.

The suit also challenges Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to fire 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.


The Public Health Stakes


In her statement, Mayes highlighted that routine childhood vaccines prevented approximately 508 million illnesses, 32 million hospitalizations, and more than 1.1 million deaths among children born between 1994 and 2023.


"We want to ensure that families continue to be fully aware that vaccines continue to be safe and effective for their children, and we encourage them to vaccinate their children against diseases that are entirely preventable," Mayes said.


The Federal Government's Position


HHS publicly stated that the schedule changes were the result of a request from President Donald Trump, who asked the agency to review how peer nations approach vaccine recommendations. Officials framed the changes as a way to increase the public's trust.


Mayes disputed that framing on the basis that comparisons to other countries fail to account for key differences, including universal health care coverage.


The Physician Community's Response


The American Academy for Family Physicians, alongside several other national-level medical associations, have publicly adopted their own childhood immunization schedules. According to AAFP's website, it does not endorse the CDC's schedule. Instead, it has posted its own scheduling tables, which are available for download.


The Arizona Medical Association and other local medical groups publicly reaffirmed the importance of vaccination to the health of patients and our communities last year.

"Vaccines are one of the greatest and most reliable forms of modern medicine,” said Dr. Sarah Coles, an ArMA Board of Directors member, AzAFP member, and family medicine physician in Flagstaff. “Without them, millions of patients would unnecessarily suffer from preventable diseases and related complications each year.”


The Arizona Medical Association, the Arizona Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians urge all parents to consult with their child’s physician about vaccinations. Protecting one child’s health helps protect our entire community.


Information in this article was sourced from Arizona's Family.

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .