Supreme Court Says Family Can Sue School and Doctors For Vaccinating Son Without Consent

RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Supreme Court delivered a win for parental rights and personal freedom Friday, ruling that Emily Happel and her son, Tanner Smith, can sue a school system and a doctors’ group for allegedly vaccinating the boy against COVID-19 without consent.

The 5-2 decision, led by the court’s Republican majority, overturned lower courts and punched a hole in the federal shield that liberals wielded to block accountability.

The saga began in August 2021, when Tanner, then 14, went to a testing clinic at his Guilford County high school after a football team outbreak. He wanted a COVID test—not the Pfizer shot. He told staff he didn’t want it and had no parental consent form, as state law required for emergency-use vaccines. But when they couldn’t reach Happel, a worker allegedly said, “Give it to him anyway,” and Tanner was jabbed against his will, the lawsuit claims.

Happel and Smith sued the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society, which ran the clinic, charging battery and violations of their state constitutional rights—her right to guide her child’s upbringing, his right to refuse forced medical treatment. A trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had dismissed the case, pointing to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. That 2005 law, triggered in 2020 by the COVID emergency, grants immunity to schools and providers pushing “countermeasures” like vaccines.

But Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing for the majority, said the PREP Act doesn’t cover everything. Its immunity stops at tort claims—like negligence—not constitutional violations rooted in North Carolina’s founding document. “A parent’s right to control their child’s care and a person’s right to say no to nonmandatory shots aren’t up for grabs,” Newby wrote, rejecting the idea that federal bureaucrats can steamroll state protections.

Conservatives cheered the ruling as a stand against government overreach. “This is about liberty, not liability shields for careless clinics,” said state Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, on X. “No one should force a shot on a kid when his mom says no.” The decision aligns with growing skepticism of COVID policies—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., has called for yanking vaccine approvals, citing alleged harms the left dismisses.

The dissent, penned by Democratic Justice Allison Riggs, whined that the majority opened a “loophole” that could hamstring emergency responses. She argued the PREP Act’s broad sweep should trump state claims, constitutional or not—a typical liberal line favoring federal power over individual rights.

This isn’t the endgame—Happel and Smith still have to prove their case. But Friday’s ruling means they get their day in court, a chance to hold accountable a system that allegedly ignored a teen’s “no” and a mother’s authority. It’s a crack in the PREP Act’s armor, signaling that consent still matters, even in a crisis. As the case heads back to trial, conservatives see a bigger fight: reining in the nanny state, one forced shot at a time.

Please leave your opinions / comments on these stories below, we appreciate your perspective!