Legal experts respond to RFK Jr’s conflict-of-interest dilemma with drugmakers
Amid the intense scrutiny over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to transfer his financial interest in vaccine lawsuits to his family, legal experts have weighed in on the matter. While some have criticized Kennedy’s move, others have pointed out that his approach is not significantly different from actions taken by other public officials in the past.
Kennedy faced questions about his financial stake in personal-injury lawsuits related to vaccines during his confirmation hearings for the position of Health and Human Services secretary. In particular, his ties to a lawsuit against pharmaceutical company Merck and its Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine were under scrutiny. Initially, Kennedy hesitated to commit to divesting his stake in the lawsuit against Merck. However, in a written response to lawmakers’ questions following the hearing, he stated that he would transfer his interest in any such litigation to his non-dependent, adult son.
While some legal experts believe that Kennedy’s decision does not go far enough to eliminate potential conflicts of interest, others argue that this approach is not uncommon among public officials. Jim Copland, director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, acknowledged that transferring the stake to his son may comply with conflict of interest rules, but he emphasized that the head of the Department of Health and Human Services should not be involved in litigation against pharmaceutical companies.
Ilya Shapiro, another legal expert at the Manhattan Institute, expressed uncertainty about whether Kennedy’s move would effectively avoid conflicts, but he noted that similar actions have been taken by other public officials in the past. Both Democrats and Republicans have used family members to shield themselves from ethics complaints related to their personal business dealings.
For example, former President Joe Biden’s family business dealings came under scrutiny, with investigations revealing that his son and brother engaged in questionable relationships with foreign entities. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also faced questions about her husband’s investments in companies that had business in front of her. Additionally, President Donald Trump handed over control of his business to his sons, and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband managed investments that intersected with her work in Congress.
Despite the criticism, some legal experts believe that Kennedy’s plan to transfer his financial stake in vaccine injury lawsuits to his son is sufficient to address ethical concerns. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that federal law limits claims against vaccine manufacturers and that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program administers vaccine-injury payments, reducing Kennedy’s potential impact on such payments.
However, Andy McCarthy, a Fox News legal analyst, was critical of Kennedy’s decision, stating that his struggle to retain his stake rather than abandoning it indicates a real conflict of interest. McCarthy emphasized that Kennedy was not elected by the public and should not have financial interests that could create conflicts in his role as HHS secretary.
In conclusion, the debate over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to transfer his financial interest in vaccine lawsuits to his family highlights the complexities of managing conflicts of interest for public officials. While some legal experts see his move as sufficient, others believe it raises serious concerns about potential conflicts in his role as Health and Human Services secretary.
