Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration didn’t follow rulemaking procedures and overstepped its authority when it proposed eliminating four required vaccines for school and daycare entry, a rule challenge filed in state administrative court alleges.
“K.O.,” a school nurse with three young children; “T.F.,” a 70-year old individual with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia; and Jacksonville family physician Danielle Carter filed the challenge in administrative court Friday along with the Florida Academy of Family Physicians.
The plaintiffs seek an administrative hearing and determination that the Department of Health lacks authorization to eliminate requirements that schoolchildren and children attending child care or daycare be vaccinated against Haemophilus influenzae type b (“Hib”), hepatitis B, varicella (chickenpox), and pneumococcal conjugate.
The plaintiffs also are asking to recover their attorney fees.
Florida law requires children at a minimum to be immunized for poliomyelitis, diphtheria, rubeola, rubella, pertussis, mumps, and tetanus to attend school but allows exemptions for valid medical and religious reasons.
The DOH holds authority under statute to also require vaccinations for “other communicable diseases as determined.”
Under that authority, and in accordance with “recognized standards of medical practice,” the plaintiffs argue, the DOH has long required the four additional vaccines. That mandate, according to the challenge, is in line with DOH’s statutory mission to “ensure that all children in this state are immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases.”
The proposed new rule, the plaintiffs argue, runs afoul of the DOH’s authority and isn’t supported by science.
“Yet, despite no new medical or scientific evidence or data calling into question the necessity, safety, or efficacy of these vaccines, the department now proposes to eliminate them from Florida’s mandatory school-entry immunization requirements, abandoning longstanding public health protections without conforming to recognized standards of medical practice, without corresponding medical or scientific justification, and in direct violation of the department’s statutory duty to ‘ensure that all children in this state are immunized against vaccine-preventable diseases,’ ” the challenge notes.
During a recent hearing on the proposed rule, DOH Secretary Joseph Ladapo said the changes weren’t based on the effectiveness or safety of vaccines but were about protecting parental rights.
Florida has a statute that protects parental rights and within that law is “the right to make health care decisions for minor children.”
But those challenging the rule argue the statute makes clear those decisions cannot conflict with other statutes. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend the DOH lacks authority to enforce the statute.
“The state surgeon general has repeatedly invoked his own purported ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ justifications for eliminating Florida’s ‘vaccine mandates’ while framing these beliefs as legitimate public health considerations.
“But neither the state surgeon general’s personal convictions nor the department’s policy preferences, irrespective of whether they legitimately fall under the umbrella of ‘public health,’ confer authority for this proposed rule modification that the Legislature has not granted,” the challenge states.
“In fact, the Legislature has specifically permitted parents to exempt their children from school entry vaccine mandates based on religious beliefs, establishing the outer limits of the State of Florida’s public health policy when it comes to exemptions,” it adds.
Improper procedure alleged
The challenge argues that DeSantis administration failed to comply with Florida’s Administrative Procedures Act, which requires an agency to publish notice of a proposed rule within 180 days after publishing the most recent notice of rule development.
The APA allows an agency to exceed the 180-day window so long as it submits a concise statement every three months explaining the delay to JAPC.
The plaintiffs argue that the “department did nothing to advance the rulemaking for 255 days.”
The DOH first published notice of proposed rulemaking on Sept. 10, 2025. On Nov. 26 that year, it announced it would hold a public meeting on the proposal in Panama City Beach and published the proposed rule language.
The DOH held the meeting in Panama City Beach on that Dec. 12. The DOH subsequently received more than 1,000 public comments, the record shows. But there was no follow up on the administrative front as the DeSantis administration turned its efforts to lobbying the Legislature to pass the policy instead.
And although the DOH did send two letters to JAPC (on Feb. 26 and June 30 this year) the notes didn’t explain the delay, the plaintiffs allege.
DeSantis vowed to make his vaccine policy a top priority before leaving office in January 2027 and the DOH returned its focus to changing the rules administratively.
On Aug. 24, the agency published a notice of a new proposed rule, the language of which nearly tracked the initial rule published eight months earlier. On Sept. 30, DOH announced it was dropping language to establish parents’ ability to object to vaccines based on morals or conscience, and also announced it would hold a workshop on the proposed rule on Oct. 8 in Lake Mary.
The plaintiffs
Parties must hold standing to challenge rules, and the legal challenge lays out why those involved can pursue the litigation.
The suit notes that Dr. Carter is a family physician whose patients includes infants, school-aged children, and expectant mothers and newborns, and that the proposed changes would “directly implicate her professional responsibilities, the delivery of preventive and primary medical care, and the health and safety of her patients.”
T.F. lives with chronic malignancy of her blood and bone marrow, and has received a bone marrow transplant. “T.F.’s health depends on the community immunity maintained by requiring schoolchildren to be vaccinated against communicable disease,” the challenge says. “The diseases related to the vaccines that the department proposes removing are especially dangerous and frequently life-threatening to an immunocompromised elderly patient.”
K.O. is a registered nurse who works at a charter school and the parent of a 2-year-old child who attends a licensed child care facility. K.O. is responsible for reviewing immunization records, administering care, and responding to communicable-disease conditions among students,” the complaint says.
“[R]emoving the vaccines from school attendance requirements would increase the presence of unimmunized children in her workplace, heightening her occupational exposure to vaccine preventable disease and enlarging the compliance, screening, and outbreak-response duties she must discharge.”
The FAFP is a not-for-profit association “with a substantial number of members” who are regulated by the rule. Approximately 95% of active physician membership of FAFP are Board Certified in Family Medicine, requiring expertise in treating patients from child birth through palliative care.”
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.
