In a landmark decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that a family can proceed with a lawsuit against a healthcare provider, alleging that their child was vaccinated without parental consent. The ruling, issued on Wednesday, marks a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over medical autonomy, parental rights, and healthcare policies.
The case stems from an incident in 2023, when the family of a minor—identified only as “J.D.” in court documents—claims that their 14-year-old child received a COVID-19 vaccine during a routine school health clinic without their knowledge or approval. According to the family’s legal filing, the parents had explicitly declined the vaccine for their child due to personal and medical concerns. They allege that the clinic, operated by a private healthcare provider contracted by the school district, administered the shot despite their refusal, violating their rights as legal guardians.
“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 family initially filed a lawsuit in a lower court, citing battery, negligence, and a violation of their constitutional rights under North Carolina law. The healthcare provider sought to dismiss the case, arguing that state public health policies and federal emergency authorizations shielded them from liability. The lower court sided with the provider, dismissing the suit on the grounds of immunity provisions tied to pandemic-era regulations. However, the family appealed, and the case made its way to the state’s highest court.
In a 5-2 decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling, stating that parental consent remains a fundamental legal requirement for medical procedures involving minors, barring emergency circumstances. Justice Rebecca Holt, writing the majority opinion, emphasized that “the right of parents to make healthcare decisions for their children is deeply rooted in both state and federal law, and no administrative policy can override that authority without due process.”
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.
The court further noted that while healthcare providers may have certain protections under public health statutes, those protections do not extend to actions that deliberately disregard parental directives. The justices remanded the case back to the lower court for a full trial, allowing the family to seek damages and present evidence of their claims.
“This is a victory for families everywhere,” said the family’s attorney, Mark Ellison, in a statement following the ruling. “No one—not a school, not a doctor, not the government—should be able to override a parent’s informed decision about their child’s medical care.”
Dissenting Opinion
The PREP Act states that “the single exception to the immunity from action and liability” is “death or serious damage caused by purposeful misconduct,” as Justice Allison Riggs and Justice Anita Earls noted in a dissenting judgment.
The decision has sparked a polarized response across the state and beyond. Advocates for parental rights hailed the ruling as a necessary check on overreaching healthcare policies, particularly in the context of vaccination programs rolled out during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics, however, warn that the ruling could undermine public health efforts and embolden anti-vaccine sentiment at a time when vaccination rates for preventable diseases are already a concern.
