By Jami Crespo, Shannon Rempe, and Wendy E. Parmet
- In our recent webinar about the role of amicus briefs in shaping public health in the courts, the speakers were law and public health professors and those doing public health advocacy.
- The speakers discussed how litigation can be used as a tool to defend and protect public health and, specifically, how amicus briefs can help shape litigation outcomes.
- The speakers also explored how attorneys can partner with public health experts, scientists, and community groups to strengthen litigation efforts.
- Did you miss the webinar? Watch the recording and keep reading for highlights and ways to partner.
Defending and Protecting Public Health in the Courts
The field of public health is facing unprecedented challenges, including efforts to cut funding and staff, reorganize public health agencies, change life-saving vaccine schedules, eliminate data, remove climate and environmental protections, and more.
Litigation can play a critical role in fighting back against these efforts. ChangeLab Solutions' recent webinar Shaping Public Health in the Courts: The Role of Amicus Briefs and Cross-Sector Partnerships explored how litigation and, specifically, amicus briefs, can advance and protect public health and the importance of partnerships in moving this work forward.
Moderated by ChangeLab Solutions vice president of law, Sabrina Adler, this webinar featured Susan Polan, associate executive director of public affairs and advocacy at the American Public Health Association (APHA); Wendy E. Parmet, professor of law at Northeastern University, co-director of the university’s Center for Health Policy and Law (CHPL), which houses Public Health Law Watch (PHLW); and Gregg Gonsalves, associate professor at Yale School of Public Health and part of the coordinating committee for Defend Public Health (DPH).
Review the webinar recording, and keep reading for key takeaways from our June 25 webinar, Shaping Public Health in the Courts: The Role of Amicus Briefs and Cross-Sector Partnerships. We also include a ways to partner with Northeastern’s Amicus Project, among other options to deepen coordination around public health litigation.
The Public Health Field is Taking a More Active Role in Litigation
In the face of the many recent attacks on public health, the field is taking a greater role in fighting back through litigation. Webinar speaker Susan Polan described how APHA has taken a more active role since the start of this current federal administration, drawing on its position as a trusted, established voice in the public health field. This shift is also apparent in the numbers, with APHA joining many more lawsuits than in previous years. According to Polan, “[Our involvement in all of these cases highlights] the importance of making sure that science, evidence, and transparency are part of any decision-making by this government.”
One case Polan highlighted was AAP v. Kennedy, in which APHA joined with the American Academy of Pediatrics and several other public health groups to sue the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his changes to the childhood immunization schedule, the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The lawsuit argues these changes violate numerous required procedures and are not based in science or evidence. A federal court has currently blocked these efforts by the administration.
Amicus Briefs Are Making a Difference in Litigation
One specific way to defend and support the field of public health in litigation is by filing amicus briefs. Amicus briefs, or “friend of the court” briefs, are submitted by individuals and organizations not directly involved in a lawsuit to provide additional perspectives. In public health cases, amicus briefs can play a critical role in helping courts understand the science, context, and real-world impacts behind each case.
Webinar speaker Wendy E. Parmet made the case for amicus briefs as a distinct and valuable tool: they let outside experts bring scientific evidence into a case that the parties themselves cannot. According to Parmet, “Parties have to focus often on the legal issues and sometimes, particularly in appellate briefs… there’s just not enough space in their briefs to deal with all the legal issues and also provide… all the scientific evidence that might help the court understand what’s going on.”
Research supports the use of amicus briefs as an effective advocacy tool when used this way. This research shows that courts place special value on amicus briefs that bring in expert medical and scientific evidence, which makes close partnership and coordination between lawyers and scientists essential to doing this work effectively.
Parmet pointed to the AAP v. Kennedy case as a clear example of these cross-sector partnerships in action. Parmet and others, through Northeastern’s Amicus Project, worked with Defend Public Health to draft an amicus brief in this case by translating scientific data into legal language to help inform the court’s decisions. In one ruling rejecting the government’s motion to dismiss the case, the judge cited this group’s amicus brief in its reasoning.
She noted: “What I really want to stress [about] what worked [in AAP v. Kennedy] ... is the partnership between the lawyers and the scientists.”
Parmet was also candid about the challenges, noting the difficulty of finding cases early enough, issues with finding attorneys, and the challenges presented by judicial partisanship in the current political climate. Parmet noted how she and partners have sharpened their focus on state-level cases, where she sees a gap in amicus brief involvement.
Cross-Sector Partnerships Are Key
All of the webinar speakers noted the importance of partnerships. Speaker Gregg Gonsalves focused specifically on what it takes to make partnerships work between lawyers and public health experts, scientists, and community groups.
He noted that lawyers, epidemiologists, and clinicians aren't natural collaborators — they often operate with different relationships to uncertainty, which can create friction when they're asked to work side by side on an amicus brief. According to Gregg, “One of the big things for me is trust is fundamental.… The great thing about our partnerships with [public health lawyers]… is they understand our limits [as epidemiologists] — they understand how constrained we are by the data.”
His takeaway: trust is the thing that makes these cross-disciplinary collaborations work. Without it, the gap between legal and scientific ways of thinking is hard to close; with it, that gap becomes a source of strength.
Help Us Continue to Move this Work Forward
The fight to protect and defend public health will continue and new and strengthened partnerships are needed. You can help us!
Northeastern’s Amicus Project is always looking to partner with other public health lawyers, professionals, and community-based advocates to find collaborative pathways to advance this work:
- If you’re tracking a state or local case that impacts public health or health equity;
- If you know an attorney or public health expert willing to work with us;
- If you want to sign on to future amicus briefs;
- If you want to serve as an expert witness in litigation;
- Or if you just want to be part of the network we’re building…
Please fill out this form (password: amicus). You can also join Defend Public Health and APHA and sign up to follow cases Northeastern and ChangeLab Solutions are tracking through Public Health Law Watch.
Additionally, Northeastern University is hosting a convening on October 19, 2026, with the goal of bringing together many of these partners to deepen coordination around public health litigation and formalize collaborative pathways for amicus brief advocacy. We will share learnings from the convening in another upcoming blog post next year.
Together we can ensure public health is accurately presented to the courts so that the field can continue protecting our communities.
You can watch the full Shaping Public Health in the Courts webinar here.
The interest in this topic was strong, with 481 people registered, and over 200 joining live, representing 176 different organizations.
10/06/26
