2 weeks Ago By Zachary Stieber
A federal law granting broad immunity to vaccine administrators and others does not preempt charges that a mother’s constitutional rights were violated when her son was given a COVID-19 vaccine without her consent, the North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled. The immunity provision in the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) only covers tort injuries, not constitutional violations, North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in the March 21 ruling. The case hinges on the distinction between tort injuries and constitutional injuries.
A tort injury is one suffered by an individual due to the wrongful or negligent actions of another individual; a constitutional injury occurs when a government actor violates an individual’s rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Courts have generally found that the immunization preempts a range of state-level claims, while the top court in North Carolina concluded that it does not shield people who violated constitutional rights. “The literalist interpretation defendants urge us to adopt today defies even the broad scope of the statutory text. Under this view, Congress gave carte blanche to any willful misconduct related to the administration of a covered countermeasure, including the State’s deliberate violation of fundamental constitutional rights, so long as it fell short of causing ‘death or serious physical injury,’” Newby said.
“Because ordinary tort loss is distinct from constitutional loss, the tort-based examples included in the PREP Act suggest that Congress did not intend for the immunity to block state constitutional claims,” Newby said. Old North State Medical Society workers vaccinated Tanner, despite his refusal and a lack of consent from his parents, at a clinic promoted by the Guilford County Board of Education. The defendants had argued the conduct was immunized by the PREP Act, citing other cases in which courts concluded similar conduct was shielded by the federal law.
North Carolina Supreme Court justices said the rulings did not persuade them because they either did not deal with constitutional claims or did not separate alleged constitutional violations from other state law claims. The appeals court said that it was “constrained to conclude the PREP Act preempts the protections” provided by state law. The North Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appeals court, instructing it to decide on constitutional issues raised by the parties.
The state’s top court did affirm the lower court’s dismissal of battery claims brought by Happel and her son. “It is not possible to square the majority’s reading with the purposes of the PREP Act and the almost uniformly broad language used to effectuate it,” Riggs said. She added later, “I would hold any constitutional claims raised by plaintiffs to be preempted by the PREP Act, rendering the defendants immune from suit.
” Steven Walker, an attorney representing Happel and her son, told The Epoch Times in an email: “We are very pleased with the Court’s ruling. While we would have, of course, loved to see the battery claim reinstated as well, we believe that the Court decision was very favorable in the main on the case and have no real complaints. “I believe the case is important even outside the issue of the PREP Act in that the Court gave its clearest explanation to date concerning the rights of parents 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 when it might be difficult to determine the safety of a countermeasure during a time of crisis. It was never intended to allow the government to trample on the clear constitutional rights of its citizens.”.
