COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits in 2025 and 2026 are being fought on several fronts at once: medical organizations are suing Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over policy changes, state attorneys general have filed a parallel challenge, injured individuals are largely blocked from suing manufacturers under a federal liability shield, and UK claimants are pressing product liability claims against AstraZeneca. No single case dominates. What follows is where each front stands and what it means if you are trying to figure out your own options.
Can You Sue a COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturer?
In almost every case, no. Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), invoked by the HHS Secretary in February 2020, vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer and Moderna have broad immunity from lawsuits over COVID-19 vaccine injuries. The shield also covers healthcare providers and government officials involved in administering the vaccines. The only statutory exception is “willful misconduct.”1CNBC. COVID Vaccine Side Effects Compensation Lawsuit
That exception is extraordinarily narrow. A plaintiff must file exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose, first exhaust the government’s administrative compensation process, and support the claim with a sworn doctor’s affidavit and certified medical records.2Congress.gov. CRS Legal Sidebar: The PREP Act and COVID-19 No plaintiff has cleared it.
Courts have consistently thrown these cases out. In Baghikian v. Providence Health & Services (C.D. Cal. 2024), allegations amounting to recklessness were held insufficient. In Ashley v. Anonymous Physician 1 (Ind. 2026), the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies and sued in the wrong venue.3SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Turns Down COVID-19 Vaccine Case Brought by John Stockton In Searcy v. Pfizer, Inc. (M.D. Ala. 2025), a court rejected a wrongful death claim and upheld PREP Act immunity against constitutional challenges based on due process, the Takings Clause, the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, and the nondelegation doctrine.
Even state officials have failed. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer alleging misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices about vaccine effectiveness. On December 31, 2024, District Judge Sam Cummings in Lubbock dismissed the case, ruling Pfizer is protected under the PREP Act.4KCBD. Lubbock Judge Dismisses Paxton’s Lawsuit Against Pfizer
The Compensation Program That Replaces a Lawsuit
Because the PREP Act blocks suits, people who believe a COVID-19 vaccine injured them are funneled into the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The numbers show a program in serious difficulty.
As of February 2025, 13,659 COVID-19 claims had been filed. Only 26 had been compensated — less than 0.2 percent. Another 3,664 were denied, and nearly 10,000 were still awaiting a decision.5MCT Law. February 2025 Data Release Shows the CICP Is Failing COVID Vaccine Injury Victims A December 2024 Government Accountability Office report found HRSA had completed reviews on just 25 percent of submitted claims, with the average case taking 24 months. The GAO blamed staffing shortages, outdated information systems, and limited scientific evidence about injuries from novel countermeasures.6GAO. Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program: COVID-19 Claims and Program Challenges
The injuries that have been paid give a rough map of what the program recognizes. HRSA data show 32 myocarditis payments (ranging from about $639 to $370,376), eight myopericarditis payments, two anaphylaxis payments, two Guillain-Barré syndrome payments, and one thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome award of $5.9 million — by far the largest.7HRSA. CICP Data Table 4 Setting aside the two highest payouts, the average award has been roughly $4,000.
Why COVID Claims Are Not in Vaccine Court
The CICP is not the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), the “vaccine court” that handles claims for routine vaccines like MMR and seasonal flu. COVID-19 vaccines fall outside the VICP because they are not recommended for routine childhood administration, are not subject to a federal excise tax, and have not been added to the Vaccine Injury Table.8HRSA. CICP and VICP Comparison
The differences matter. The VICP runs through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with independent special masters; the CICP is an internal HHS review. The VICP pays attorneys’ fees regardless of outcome; the CICP does not. The VICP allows up to $250,000 for pain and suffering; the CICP provides none. The VICP gives three years to file; the CICP gives one year from the date of vaccination. Historically, the VICP has compensated roughly 43 percent of petitions.9KFF. Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs: Overview and Current Issues
Medical Groups v. Kennedy: The Policy Case
American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedy, filed July 7, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is the highest-profile COVID-19 vaccine lawsuit currently pending. Six major medical organizations — the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Massachusetts Public Health Alliance, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine — along with an anonymous pregnant physician, sued HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and HHS.10IDSA. Leading Medical Professional Societies, Patient Sue HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Unlawful, Unilateral Vaccine Changes
The suit challenges Kennedy’s May 27, 2025, decision — announced on X — to stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women.11The New York Times. Medical Groups Sue Kennedy Over COVID Vaccine Policy It also challenges Kennedy’s firing of all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and their replacement with eight new members, some of whom had publicly criticized vaccines. The complaint says Kennedy acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and bypassed required federal procedures.12CIDRAP. Medical Groups Sue HHS, Kennedy Over COVID Vaccine Policy Changes
On March 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy granted a preliminary injunction giving the plaintiffs substantially all the relief they sought. Judge Murphy found HHS had “veered sharply from normal procedure” and likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The injunction stayed Kennedy’s ACIP appointments, nullified all votes the reconstituted committee had taken since June 11, 2025, and blocked modifications to the childhood vaccine schedule.13Pharmacy Times. Overhaul of Childhood Vaccine Guidance Blocked by Federal Judge in Massachusetts The court also found 13 of Kennedy’s appointees lacked the vaccine-related expertise the committee’s charter requires.14CIDRAP. HHS Asks Expedited Appeal of Court Ruling on US Vaccine Policy
One important carve-out. The May 2025 change removing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women predates the June 11, 2025, cutoff and remains in effect despite the injunction.15Congress.gov. CRS Insight: COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations
In mid-June 2026, HHS filed a motion to expedite an appeal, arguing the injunction prevents ACIP from reviewing newly approved vaccines and preparing for flu season. AAP President Dr. Andrew Racine responded that the government could simply appoint qualified experts to restore a lawful ACIP. As of June 2026, no appellate ruling had issued.16The New York Times. Childhood Vaccines Lawsuit Kennedy
The Multistate Attorney General Suit
On February 24, 2026, a coalition of 15 state attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania filed a parallel case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The target: a January 5, 2026, CDC “Decision Memo” that demoted seven childhood vaccines — including COVID-19, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, rotavirus, meningococcal, influenza, and RSV — from universally recommended status.17California Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Multistate Lawsuit to Block Trump Administration’s Changes The plaintiffs argue the schedule changes lack scientific basis and that Kennedy’s ACIP appointments violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act because the new members were not “fairly balanced” in viewpoint and lacked required qualifications. They are asking the court to vacate both the revised schedule and the committee appointments.18Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. Attorney General Tong Sues to Block RFK Jr. Vaccine Overhaul
Other Active and Recently Resolved Cases
Children’s Health Defense RICO Suit Against AAP
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the American Academy of Pediatrics on January 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. CHD alleges the AAP promoted vaccine safety claims without comprehensive clinical testing, suppressed scientific uncertainty, and retaliated against dissenting physicians. Plaintiffs include CHD, families of children allegedly injured by vaccines, and pediatricians who say their careers were harmed for questioning AAP guidelines.19Children’s Health Defense. AAP RICO Lawsuit Legal observers note that civil RICO claims recasting scientific disagreements as racketeering frequently fail at the pleading stage.20CIDRAP. State of US Vaccine Policy The AAP filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2026, with CHD’s response due June 9.
Stockton v. Brown
NBA Hall of Famer John Stockton, several physicians, and CHD brought a First Amendment challenge against the Washington Medical Commission, arguing the agency violated free speech by investigating and sanctioning doctors who discouraged COVID-19 vaccination and promoted alternative treatments like ivermectin. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case in September 2025, ruling that federal courts must abstain under Younger v. Harris from interfering with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings and that the non-disciplined plaintiffs lacked standing.21Courthouse News Service. Ninth Circuit Rejects Doctors’ Challenge to Washington’s COVID Speech Rules On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment.3SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Turns Down COVID-19 Vaccine Case Brought by John Stockton
Canadian Class Action
A proposed class action, Sakamoto v. Attorney General of Canada, is moving through the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. The plaintiff, Carrie Sakamoto of Lethbridge, Alberta, alleges the federal and provincial governments engaged in negligent, deceptive practices around the marketing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. A certification hearing was scheduled for June 15–18, 2026, at the Calgary Courthouse.22Rath & Company. COVID-19 Vaccine Class Action
The AstraZeneca Litigation in the UK
Outside the United States, the most significant COVID-19 vaccine injury litigation involves AstraZeneca. The law firm Leigh Day represents roughly 50 individuals and families in the UK who allege serious injury or death from vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT), a rare blood-clotting condition. The claim is brought as a product liability action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.23Leigh Day. AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Claim
AstraZeneca has acknowledged in court documents that its COVID-19 vaccine can, in rare cases, cause TTS. The UK government indemnified the company during the pandemic, meaning it is funding the defense and would pay any successful claims. The case is expected to reach trial in 2025 or 2026.24BBC. AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine Legal Action The lead claimant, Jamie Scott, suffered a severe brain injury and blood clots after his vaccination in April 2021. Separately, AstraZeneca withdrew its EU marketing authorization in May 2024, a decision linked to low demand and the availability of mRNA alternatives.25The Conversation. AstraZeneca’s COVID Vaccine Withdrawn
Legislation That Could Change the Landscape
Two bills would alter the U.S. injury framework, but neither has moved. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act (H.R. 5142), introduced in August 2023 with bipartisan support from ten sponsors including Representatives Lloyd Doggett (D) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R), would have transferred pending COVID-19 claims from the CICP to the VICP. It died in committee in January 2025.26BillTrack50. Vaccine Injury Compensation Modernization Act of 2023 H.R. 4668, the End the Vaccine Carveout Act, introduced by Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) with 28 cosponsors, would eliminate the PREP Act liability shield entirely. As of July 2025, it had been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with no further action.27GovInfo. H.R. 4668 – End the Vaccine Carveout Act Under current law, COVID-19 vaccines are set to remain under the CICP through the end of 2029.9KFF. Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs: Overview and Current Issues