NC Mom Can Sue School District for Injecting Son With COVID Shot Without Consent, Court Rules

The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a mother in the state now allowing her to sue her 14-year-old son's public school system and a medical provider for reportedly forcing him to get the COVID-19 shot without his or her consent and without her knowledge. 

Emily Happel attempted to sue Guilford County Board of Education and Old North State Medical Society in August 2022, alleging battery and infringement of state constitutional rights after her son, Tanner Smith, was forcibly injected with a dose of Pfizer's COVID shot against his wishes and without parental approval.

However, lower courts dismissed the case after ruling that the 2005 federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act protected the school district and the medical provider from any liability.

They added in their decision that the law's broad protections "fully immunized" organizations and individuals who administer medical "countermeasures" during a public health emergency from state law claims.

During the pandemic, the young boy had reported to the school clinic to be tested after a COVID-19 cluster was detected among the Western Guilford High School football team. 

His stepfather drove him to the clinic but remained outside. 

***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving the latest news.***

The school had previously notified parents that the school clinic would be open for testing, but did not explicitly express that the COVID shots were being administered on-site. 

According to the ruling's summary of the allegations, healthcare workers attempted to give Smith the shot, but he protested. He also did not have the required signed parental consent form to get the shot. 

Clinic workers attempted to reach his mother by phone to get permission but were not able to. Instead of calling his stepfather who was outside, they forced the young boy to get the shot with a worker instructing to "give it to him anyway," the ruling stated.

Last year, a panel of the intermediate-level appeals court ruled unanimously against Happel. North Carolina's high court overturned the ruling 5-2 citing the PREP Act went into effect in March 2020 after the state declared a public health emergency at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Chief Justice Paul Newby, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that the federal law does not prevent the mother and son from suing on the allegations that their rights in the state constitution had been violated.

He specifically noted that the law does give the right for parents to control their child's upbringing, the right to "refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment," and the right for a mother to make medical decisions on behalf of her child. 

"Indeed, the constitutional right to full 'custody and control' over one's minor children would ring hollow if it did not include the right to consent on the child's behalf, as well as the right to seek a constitutional remedy when the State disregards the absence of that consent," wrote Chief Justice Newby.

The majority of the justices agreed the PREP Act's immunity only covers tort injuries or injuries caused by negligent or wrongful actions.

"Because tort injuries are not constitutional violations, the PREP Act does not bar plaintiffs' constitutional claims," Newby added. 

Associate Justice Allison Riggs wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that state constitutional claims should be preempted from the federal law and criticized the court for a "fundamentally unsound" interpretation of the constitution.

"Through a series of dizzying inversions, it explicitly rewrites an unambiguous statute to exclude state constitutional claims from the broad and inclusive immunity," Riggs said.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver has pushed back on Riggs' opinion stating, "No law can preempt the U.S. Constitution."

"The PREP Act does not authorize a forced injection of an experimental shot, which is an egregious abuse of power and a constitutional violation. The North Carolina Supreme Court has rightly ruled that Emily Happel's case involving her son Tanner Smith can move forward. Parents have the longstanding right to direct the upbringing of their children and the right to make medical decisions on their behalf," Staver wrote.