Federal law does not prohibit claims brought by parents, the state’s Supreme Court said.
Federal law granting widespread immunity to vaccine managers and others does not preempt accusations that a mother’s constitutional rights were violated when her son was given a Covid-19 vaccine without his consent, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled.
The lower court found that a federal law called the Public Preparation and Emergency Preparation Act (Prep) has preempted the claims filed by Happel and Tanner. However, North Carolina Supreme Court Judge Paul Newby wrote that the law is not a constitutional violation and only offers immunity in circumstances that typically involve tort laws such as serious injuries.
The courts have generally found that vaccinations prevail over various state-level claims, but the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that it does not protect those who violated their constitutional rights.
“The literal interpreted defendant urges us to adopt today. Under this view, Congress has given Carte Blanche to intentional misconduct related to the deliberate control of the state’s constitutional rights.
Related Stories
He said that interpretation would cause the covered person to vaccinate unconscious patients or nurses in public schools in order to deliberately exaggerate the benefits of treatment. “The fundamental and most important constitutional rights to body integrity and parental control will be abolished without rethinking,” Newby writes. “It cannot simply be what Congress intended.”
Definition of “loss” based on the preparation method
Under the PREP Act, Congress provided liability for “all claims for losses.” Haffel argued that her claims did not meet the definition of loss. The Congress detailed it to include death and loss of property. All examples listed in the law are related to tort law, a majority of the North Carolina Supreme Court said.
“Because normal tort losses are different from constitutional losses, examples based on torts contained in the PREP Act suggest that Congress had no intention of blocking the state’s constitutional claims,” Newby said.
An old North Medical Association worker vaccinated Tanner in a clinic promoted by the Guilford County Board of Education despite his denial and lack of consent from his parents. The defendant allegedly claimed that the conduct was vaccinated by the PREP Act, citing other cases in which the court concluded that similar conduct was protected by federal law.
A North Carolina Supreme Court judge said the ruling did not persuade them because they either failed to address the constitutional claims or separated allegations of unconstitutionality from other state law claims.
The Court of Appeals said that “PREP Act is restricted to entering into a pre-preemptive measure of protection,” provided by state law.
The North Carolina Supreme Court directed the case to be remanded to the Court of Appeals and decided on constitutional issues brought by the parties.
The state’s Supreme Court confirmed the dismissal of a lower court battery claim brought by Haffel and her son.
In the agreed opinion, Judge Philip Berger Jr. said that Justice Tamara Burlinger was joined, but said that while the PREP Act immunity may seem limitless, “it is difficult to allow the PREP Act to grant immunity to a complete tort.”
Opposition
In her dissent, Justice Alison Riggs, joined by Justice Anita Earls, said the Prep Act was “the only exception to litigation and immunity from liability.”
“The purpose of the PREP method and the almost uniformly broad language used to achieve it, it cannot square the majority reading,” Riggs said. She later stated, “I will retain the constitutional claims filed by the plaintiff for preemption under the PREP Act and exempt the defendant from lawsuit.”
Riggs also wrote that immunity applies only to civil litigation and liability.
Impact on parents’ rights
A lawyer for the former North State Medical Association declined to comment. The Guilford County Board of Education and one of its attorneys did not respond to inquiries at the time of publication.
Steven Walker, a lawyer representing Happel and her son, told the Epoch Times in an email: “I am very pleased with the court’s decision. Of course, I loved watching the battery claims recover too, but I believe the court’s decision is largely incredibly advantageous and there were no actual complaints.
“I think this case is important even outside of the PREP Act issues in that it gave the clearest explanation to date about the rights of parents to make medical decisions for children under the North Carolina Constitution,” Walker said.
“The PREP Act has a purpose, and its purpose is to provide immune protection in situations where it may be difficult to determine the safety of measures during times of crisis. It never allowed the government to trample on the clear constitutional rights of its citizens.”
