By Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that a federal law that grants broad immunity to vaccine administrators and others does not preclude claims that a mother’s constitutional rights were violated when her son was given a COVID-19 vaccine without her consent.
According to a March 21 ruling, Emily Happel and her teenage son may be suing their local school board and a medical organization. Happel’s son, Tanner Smith, who was 14 at the time, was given the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021, even though administrators did not get parental consent.
Lower courts found that a federal law called the Public Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) barred the claims brought by Happel and Tanner. However, North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote for the majority that the law only grants immunity in situations typically associated with tort law, such as serious injury, and not in cases of constitutional violation.
The PREP Act, signed in 2005, comes into effect when the federal government declares a public health emergency, which it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law says that under the declaration, covered people, such as vaccine administrators, are protected from “all claims,” with some exceptions.
Courts have generally found that immunization prevents many state-level lawsuits, while the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that it does not protect people who violated constitutional rights.
“The literalist interpretation that defendants urge us to adopt today defies even the broad scope of the statute’s text. Under this view, Congress authorized any intentional misconduct connected with the administration of a covered countermeasure, including intentional violations of the state’s fundamental constitutional rights, so long as it did not result in ‘death’ or serious bodily injury.”
He said such an interpretation would allow a covered person to vaccinate an unconscious patient or a public school nurse to intentionally exaggerate the benefits of the treatment. “The fundamental and vital constitutional rights to bodily integrity and parental control are thoughtlessly disregarded,” Newby wrote. “This simply cannot be Congress’s intent.”
Definition of “Damage” under the PREP Act
Congress granted immunity “from all claims for damages” in the PREP Act. Happel argued that his claims did not meet the definition of loss, which Congress specified to include death and property loss. The examples listed in the law all relate to tort law, the North Carolina Supreme Court majority said.
“Because ordinary tortious loss is distinct from constitutional harm, the tort-based examples included in the PREP Act suggest that Congress did not intend to block state constitutional claims with immunity,” Newby said.
Old North State Medical Society staff vaccinated Tanner despite his refusal and lack of parental consent at a clinic promoted by the Guilford County Board of Education. The defendants argued that the PREP Act protected this conduct, citing other cases in which courts have concluded that similar conduct is protected by federal law.
The North Carolina Supreme Court justices said they were unconvinced by the rulings because they either did not address constitutional claims or did not separate the alleged constitutional violations from other state law claims.
The new ruling overturns the decisions of a trial court that sided with the defendants in 2023 and the decisions of a state appeals court that upheld that decision the following year.
The appeals court said it was forced to conclude that the PREP Act preempts protections provided in state law.
The North Carolina Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court, instructing it to decide the constitutional issues raised by the parties.
The state’s highest court affirmed that a lower court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Happel and his son.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Philip Berger Jr., joined by Judge Tamara Barringer, said that the PREP Act’s immunity may appear unlimited, but “it is difficult to accept that the PREP Act provides immunity for direct offenses.”
Dissent
Judge Allison Riggs, joined by Judge Anita Earls, noted in her dissent that the PREP Act states that “the only exception to immunity from suit and liability” is “death or serious injury caused by intentional misconduct.”
“It is not possible to connect the majority’s reading to the purposes of the PREP Act and the almost uniformly broad language used to implement it,” Riggs said. He later added, “I find that all of the constitutional claims raised by plaintiffs are preempted by the PREP Act, rendering defendants immune from suit.”
Riggs also wrote that immunity applies only to civil lawsuits and liability, not criminal charges or discipline by licensing authorities.
Consequences of parental rights
An attorney for the Old North State Medical Society declined to comment. The Guilford County Board of Education and one of its attorneys did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Steven Walker, an attorney representing Happel and his son, told The Epoch Times in an email: “We are very pleased with the court’s decision. While we would have liked to see the battery claim reinstated, we believe the verdict was largely favorable to the case and there were no real complaints.”
“I believe the case is important beyond the PREP Act issue because the court provided its clearest explanation yet of parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children under the North Carolina Constitution,” Walker said.
“The PREP Act has a purpose, and that purpose is to provide immunity protections in situations where it may be difficult to determine the safety of a response during a crisis. Its purpose was never to allow the government to trample on the clear constitutional rights of its citizens.”
