Associate Professor of Health Law, Policy, & Management. Boston University School of Public Health. Author of Anti-Scientific Americans: https://a.co/d/7oSVhwP
![This argument can only be countenanced if one completely abandons the idea of objective fact, a nihilist endeavor this Court does not find appropriately read into Congress’s public health statutes. An exchange during oral argument sums it up well: THE COURT: . . . let’s say that instead of revising the vaccine schedule, the CDC said, actually, we think measles is good for you; you should go have lunch with someone with measles, and we are sponsoring measles lunches in every city, come have some measles lunch, that would seem to -- that would seem to go right up against the goal of preventing communicable diseases. Would such a policy by the CDC be judicially reviewable? [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I think that would still be committed to agency discretion by law. THE COURT: So even if what the agency was saying is we like communicable diseases and we think you should get more of them, that’s not judicially reviewable. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] No.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pksfm7r3yk6rsfzrbocljh23/bafkreihmtdfhhypgupwqfhnl2airtf7ykxy2c5wiw7z72jh25ek7lzamky)
Associate Professor of Health Law, Policy, & Management. Boston University School of Public Health. Author of Anti-Scientific Americans: https://a.co/d/7oSVhwP