The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a family whose teenage son was allegedly given a COVID-19 vaccine without his or his mother’s consent, clearing the way for the lawsuit to proceed against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society.
The case centers on Tanner Smith, who was 14 years old in August 2021 when he went to a school-run clinic at his high school for a COVID-19 test following an outbreak on his football team. According to court filings, Tanner and his mother, Emily Happel, were clear: they did not want him to be vaccinated.
Tanner had no signed consent form, and when clinic workers couldn’t reach his mother, he was told he would not be vaccinated. Yet according to the lawsuit, a supervisor at the clinic later overrode those instructions and ordered that the vaccine be administered anyway—despite Tanner allegedly saying, “I don’t want this.”
Lower Courts Tried to Block the Case—But the Supreme Court Disagreed
Previously, lower courts had dismissed the family’s claims by citing the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, a federal law that grants immunity to certain individuals and organizations involved in public health emergencies. But the state’s highest court saw things differently.
Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote that constitutional claims—such as a parent’s right to direct their child’s upbringing or an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment—are not automatically nullified by public health immunity statutes.
This landmark ruling allows the family’s constitutional and medical battery claims to move forward, signaling that the courts are not willing to excuse violations of consent and parental authority, even during a declared emergency.
Legal and Parental Rights Take Center Stage
The case has drawn attention nationwide as it touches on a growing concern: the erosion of parental rights and individual medical freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics of pandemic-era policies argue that bureaucrats and public health agencies overstepped their authority, often treating parents and patients as obstacles rather than partners.
Supporters of the family say this ruling is an important step toward accountability and a clear message that forced medical treatment—especially on minors—is unacceptable in a free society.
The Bottom Line
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision isn’t just about a single vaccine—it’s about reaffirming basic rights. In ruling that the PREP Act does not shield entities from violating constitutional liberties, the court has upheld the principle that government authority ends where individual consent begins.