Or when vaccination without consent gives way to fundamental rights: a historic decision
On March 21, 2025, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education, allowing a family to sue a public school and a medical company for administering a COVID-19 vaccine to a minor without their mother‘s consent. This judgment represents a convincing victory for individual freedoms in the face of federal immunities granted by the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Act (hereinafter referred to as the « Federal Health Emergency Act »). Here is an analysis of the scope of this decision, the issues, the legal context and the repercussions of this decision for Americans, Europeans and associations campaigning for citizens’ rights.
The non-profit BonSens.org was one of the first to communicate on this important decision:
🇺🇸Important Court Decision: REFUSAL TO APPLY PREP ACT PROTECTION
🔹A first US appeals court has just refused to apply the PREP ACT protection (i.e., the US law that prevents any action against vaccine manufacturers).
🔹The contracts signed by @vonderleyen for the EU and…— BonSens.Org (@BonsensOrg) March 24, 2025
This decision comes at the right time after the appointment of Robert Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and the repeated requests of Senator Ron Johnson on the limitation of this federal immunity, which they consider excessive and contrary to the interests of citizens. In addition, this decision comes in the wake of President Trump’s order to end federal funding for schools that mandate Covid-19 vaccination.
The highlights of the case
In August 2021, Tanner Smith, a 14-year-old teenager playing football at Western Guilford High School in North Carolina, is faced with an unexpected situation. After a surge in COVID-19 cases within its team, the school suspended sports activities and required players to be tested or certified by a professional. An on-site clinic, organized by the Guilford County School Board in collaboration with the Old North State Medical Society, offers free testing. However, the letter sent to parents fails to mention that vaccines are also available there.
Accompanied by his father-in-law, Tanner goes to the clinic for a simple screening. He has no intention or authorization to receive a vaccine, and no parental consent form has been signed, as per school rules. Despite her protests and the inability to reach her mother, Emily Happel, the clinic employees decided to forcibly administer a dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. This act, perceived as a violation of the rights of the child and her mother, prompted Happel to file a lawsuit against the School Board and the Medical Society, alleging physical assault and violations of constitutional rights guaranteed by the state Constitution.
Chief Justice Newby of the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that, « While federal immunity protects against physical assault prosecution, it does not extend to violations of constitutional rights. As a result, claims related to the latter can be considered by the lower courts.
As a result, Americans gain a legal tool to defend their freedoms, albeit limited to cases where constitutional principles are at stake, which requires complex procedures. A first step in the right direction.
The Federal Health Emergency Act – A Controversial Protection
Adopted in 2005, the federal health emergency law aims to encourage the rapid implementation of medical measures, such as vaccines, during health crises. In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Secretary Alex Azar activated this law, classifying vaccines as “protected measures” and providing nearly total immunity to the entities involved – schools, hospitals, or providers – from civil lawsuits, whether under federal or state law. The only exception is intentional misconduct proven before a specific federal court.
This immunity is designed to take precedence over state laws, under the principle of supremacy in the U.S. Constitution. In Happel, the defendants relied on this protection to seek dismissal of the proceedings. The lower courts initially agreed with them, drawing on previous decisions, such as the one concerning vaccination without consent in 2012. However, the Supreme Court adopts a more nuanced reading: immunity covers material or physical harm, but not infringements of fundamental constitutional rights, which fall outside this definition.
The law offers broad protection, but this decision reveals its limitations, leaving the door open to remedies based on constitutional principles.
Implications for Americans
This ruling has major consequences for U.S. citizens, strengthening their rights while redefining the contours of federal immunity.
First of all, the affirmation of fundamental rights: the court recognizes two rights implicit in the North Carolina Constitution: the right of parents to decide for their children in medical matters and the right of each person to preserve his or her physical integrity in the face of non-compulsory imposed treatment. These principles, which are rooted in the legal tradition, are becoming clearer and stronger.
A first on the limitation of federal immunity : by separating material damage from constitutional infringements, the decision restricts the scope of the federal health emergency law. Americans now have a way to challenge abuses, as long as they base them on constitutional rights.
Caution would become the norm in schools again : public institutions could review their practices, including their partnerships with medical organizations, to avoid similar disputes. This case underscores the importance of express consent.
Reopening the debate on the balance between public health and freedoms : Justice Riggs’ dissenting voice, which defends broader immunity, reflects a persistent tension: « How far can the state act for the common good without infringing on individual rights? This debate remains lively.
The main consequence is that Americans gain a legal tool to defend their freedoms, although limited to cases where constitutional principles are at stake, which requires complex procedures.
Consequences and repercussions for Europeans
Although specific to the American system, this decision could resonate in Europe, where the questions of mandatory vaccination are also agitating:
Europe does not have a law equivalent to the American health emergency, but the contracts signed by the European Commission with this advance purchase contract have made it possible to circumvent the right to free and informed consent. All the more so since these contracts were redacted in the name of defending the interests of intellectual property rights, whereas the EC should have been committed to defending the interests of citizens. These national and European measures have therefore provided more protection for manufacturers and authorities. The distinction between material damage and fundamental rights could encourage remedies based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular its article on physical integrity.
In countries such as France and Italy, where vaccine mandates have been imposed, the ruling could galvanize opponents by showing that a court can limit immunities in the name of personal freedoms. In particular for the suspended caregivers and all those who were downgraded to the status of sub-citizens who were going to harm others and clog up hospitals.
Unlike the United States, where states retain legal autonomy, Europe operates under a more unified hierarchy. Citizens could turn to the European Court of Human Rights for similar appeals, but with obstacles related to the slow and complex procedures.
The main consequence of the American decision remains indirect, offering a moral argument to the Europeans, but legal differences reduce its practical scope.
Non-profit & associations for the defense of science and citizens’ rights
Movements such as non-profit BonSens.org in France, which denounce vaccine policies perceived as authoritarian, find symbolic support in this judgment.
These associations, as well as their counterparts such as CHD (Children’s Health Defense) in the United States, are advocating for the respect of freedoms in the face of health measures, but also for the most complete transparency on contracts in order to enlighten citizens on what decision-makers knew. The recognition of parental and physical rights by the court reinforces their message and thus proves BonSens.org, Frédéric Baldan and more than 1000 plaintiffs right.
These associations could be inspired by this case to favor prosecutions based on constitutional or human rights, thus circumventing the immunities granted to health actors. Or see how such a procedure could be brought in the United States as BonSens.org did in 2022.
This precedent became a lever to rally their support and raise public awareness , particularly on the transparency of agreements between governments and pharmaceutical laboratories.
Their success depends on local legal frameworks. In France, for example, vaccination measures have been validated by national authorities, making victories more difficult. However, the emergence of new facts such as the fact that the decision-making bodies did not take note of the contracts before voting could tip the balance. At least this is what public opinion thinks in a recent France-Soir/BonSens.org poll: 79% think that it is absolutely abnormal that it is citizens who have had to fight for transparency on vaccine contracts. And 64% believe that if the decision-making bodies did not have access to the vaccine contract before making a decision, they cannot declare that they have acted in the interest of citizens.
For these groups, this judgment is a source of inspiration, however, their fight remains hampered by less favorable contexts, at least for the moment. The tide seems to be turning.
The case of Happel v. the Guilford County Board of Education marks a significant step forward: individual freedoms can triumph, even partially, over federal immunities. For Americans, it opens up a narrow but valuable path to protect their rights. For Europeans, it feeds a universal debate on public health and freedoms. Finally, for citizen rights associations such as BonSens.org, it represents a glimmer of hope in their fight against vaccine policies perceived as oppressive.
This case illustrates a fundamental truth: even in times of crisis, fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed without consequence. It remains to be seen whether this precedent will prompt other jurisdictions, in the United States and beyond, to reassess the limits of immunity granted to public health actors.