North Carolina Supreme Court rules schools CANNOT LEGALLY vaccinate children without parental consent, upholding parental rights and protecting children's health
By ljdevon // 2025-03-25
Copy
 
• North Carolina Supreme Court rules that schools and health clinics cannot administer COVID-19 vaccines to minors without parental consent. • Court rejects PREP Act immunity for constitutional violations, allowing parents to sue for unauthorized vaccinations. • Case involves a 14-year-old boy forcibly vaccinated despite objections from both the child and his mother. • Majority opinion declares COVID-era policies as "the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country." • Dissenting justices argue the ruling undermines federal immunity protections under the PREP Act.

NC Supreme Court defends parental rights and children's health

In a landmark decision that reaffirms parental rights and bodily autonomy, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled late last week that schools and health clinics cannot forcibly vaccinate children without parental consent, striking a blow against medical tyranny and government overreach. The ruling, which allows lawsuits to proceed against institutions that violated these rights, exposes the dangerous erosion of medical ethics during the COVID-19 scam—where children were demeaned, isolated, and gagged as mere test subjects in a mass pharmaceutical experiment. The case centers on Tanner Smith, a 14-year-old football player at Western Guilford High School, who was injected with a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine against his will and without his mother’s knowledge. Despite his protests and the absence of a signed consent form, clinic workers callously instructed one another to "give it to him anyway"—an act the court described as a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

Prep act cannot override parental rights, court rules

The court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Paul Newby, declared that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act—a federal law granting immunity to entities administering emergency countermeasures—does not preempt state laws requiring parental consent for medical procedures. “We agree that the state constitution protects a parent’s right to control her child’s upbringing, including her right to make medical decisions on her child’s behalf,” Newby wrote. He further condemned the "greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country," referencing the coercive medical practices that became normalized under the guise of public health. However, the court rejected the battery claim against the clinic and school, ruling that the PREP Act still shields them from injury lawsuits—a decision that Children’s Health Defense (CHD), which filed an amicus brief in the case, called "narrow but important." Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD General Counsel, stated: "While this is a very important victory, it nonetheless underscores the importance of continuing to fight for the recognition and application of fundamental rights to bodily integrity and freedom from unwanted medical interventions."

Schools are not medical clinics and should be barred from administering biologics and genetic experiments altogether

Public schools have no business acting as vaccination hubs, yet during the COVID-19 hysteria, they became de facto medical centers, pressuring students into experimental injections without parental knowledge. This case reveals the disturbing reality of how easily children can be manipulated, coerced, or outright forced into medical procedures they do not want—and how schools betray their primary mission of education by engaging in medical coercion. • Schools lack proper medical oversight—Unlike hospitals or clinics, they are not equipped to handle adverse reactions, vaccine shedding, or informed consent protocols. • Administrators and health workers have no right to override parents—Medical decisions belong to families, not government employees. • The PREP Act was never meant to justify medical tyranny—Its immunity provisions were designed for legitimate emergencies, not for trampling constitutional rights. Steven Walker, the plaintiffs’ attorney, emphasized: "The PREP Act was never intended to allow the government to trample on the clear constitutional rights of its citizens."

A nationwide pattern of medical abuse

This case is not isolated. Across the U.S., schools and health agencies have weaponized the PREP Act to bypass parental rights: • In Vermont, a 6-year-old was vaccinated against his and his parents’ will—yet courts shielded officials from liability. • In Maine, the state Supreme Court ruled that school nurses could not be sued for vaccinating a child without consent. • The Biden administration extended PREP Act immunity until 2029, ensuring Big Pharma and complicit institutions face no consequences for violating medical ethics. Justice Allison Riggs, in her dissent, accused the majority of "rewriting an unambiguous statute" to fit their interpretation—a hypocritical stance from justices who claim to uphold strict legal textualism. But as Ray Flores, CHD Senior Counsel, noted: "North Carolina is unique among states since written permission from a parent or legal guardian is required before a healthcare provider may administer an unlicensed vaccine. Without this parental consent law in place, the outcome would have been much different."

Will parents finally take back control?

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling is a critical step in dismantling the medical-industrial complex’s grip on children’s health. But with courts in other states still shielding violators, and federal immunity protections extended for years to come, the battle is far from over. As Chief Justice Newby warned, the COVID-19 era saw unprecedented government overreach—where casinos stayed open while churches closed, and children were injected behind parents’ backs. Will this ruling mark the beginning of a parental rights revolution, or will the medical deep state continue its assault on bodily autonomy? One thing is clear: Public schools must return to teaching—not experimenting on children, abusing their health and mind, and confusing them about their bodies. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org WRAL.com ASPR.HHS.gov
Copy