Judge Issues Ruling in Case Where Minor Was Given Covid Vaccine Without Parents Permission

A North Carolina mother and her teenage son can move forward with a lawsuit after the boy was given a COVID-19 vaccine at school without parental permission, according to a new state Supreme Court ruling.

Key Facts:

In August 2021, 14-year-old Tanner Smith received a COVID-19 vaccine at a school clinic in Guilford County despite telling staff he didn’t want it and lacking parental consent.
His mother, Emily Happel, and Tanner filed suit against the Guilford County Board of Education and the Old North State Medical Society.
Lower courts previously dismissed the case, citing federal immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
On March 22, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed those rulings, allowing the case to proceed on state constitutional grounds.
Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote that parents have the right to direct their children’s medical decisions and that the PREP Act does not shield violations of constitutional rights.

The Rest of The Story:

The lawsuit centers around a COVID testing and vaccination clinic run at a Guilford County high school in 2021.

Tanner Smith attended the clinic for a COVID test but ended up receiving the vaccine.

He told clinic staff he didn’t want the shot and did not have a signed consent form from his mother.

According to the lawsuit, a worker told another to vaccinate him anyway after being unable to reach his mom.

The family filed suit for battery and constitutional violations.

Lower courts had previously blocked the lawsuit, citing federal emergency protections under the PREP Act.

But the state Supreme Court disagreed, saying that while the federal law may protect against civil tort claims, it does not cover constitutional violations like those involving parental rights.

Chief Justice Newby’s majority opinion emphasized that North Carolina law upholds a parent’s authority over medical decisions for their children.

The court ruled that these rights were not preempted by federal immunity laws.

A 14 year old was given the COVID-19 jab against his or his parents consent. The staff said "give it to him anyway" when they couldn't reach his parents.

This should be a clear and cut case!

As The Defender previously reported, Guilford County Schools on Aug. 19, 2021, sent a… pic.twitter.com/mN1D5ZgaKi

— Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪 (@catsscareme2021) July 30, 2024

Commentary:

This ruling is an important step toward restoring parental rights and medical choice.

What happened to this family is more than a legal misstep—it’s a betrayal of trust.

A 14-year-old clearly said no.

There was no signed consent.

And yet, someone at that clinic still gave him an experimental vaccine.

That’s outrageous.

Parents should never be sidelined when it comes to their children’s health.

Giving any drug—especially one developed under emergency use authorization—without consent is not only unethical but dangerous.

It sends the message that the government or medical institutions can override family decisions.

This family’s decision to fight back is commendable.

They’re not just standing up for their son, but for every parent who worries about their child being subjected to medical decisions behind their back.

We hope the court ultimately rules in favor of the family.

Public health measures should never become a shield for bypassing the Constitution.

Schools and clinics must be held accountable when they ignore basic rights.

This lawsuit should serve as a warning: parental consent is not optional.

If the system fails to respect that, then it must answer in court.

The Bottom Line:

The North Carolina Supreme Court is allowing a family to sue after their son was vaccinated for COVID-19 at school without parental permission.

The ruling affirms that constitutional rights, like parental authority, cannot be ignored—even during a health emergency.

This case could have major implications for future medical decisions involving minors.

It’s a step in the right direction toward restoring trust and protecting families.