Good News: Supreme Court of North Carolina dents the PREP Act liability shield.

The court rules that the PREP ACT does not prevent individuals from using the state’s constitution to sue for injuries relating to the Covid-19 countermeasures.

Court ruling here.

This decision directly contradicts the Supreme Court of Maine decision in a very similar case - a minor injected by the school vax clinic without parental knowledge or consent. I covered the Maine decision previously:

Maine's Supreme Court affirms the PREP Act liability shield for vaccinations of children against parental consent.

Brief Summary of the Case:

The NC Supreme Court reviewed a lower court's decision to dismiss claims brought by parents (plaintiffs) against the Guilford County Board of Education and others (defendants) related to their minor son, Smith, injected with mRNA shot against his or his parents’ consent. The lower courts had concluded that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act preempted all of the plaintiffs' state law claims. The NC Supreme Court allowed discretionary review on the issue of PREP Act preemption. In a split decision, the Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that while the PREP Act likely preempts common law tort claims like battery, it does not preempt the plaintiffs' claims for violations of fundamental rights under the North Carolina Constitution. The Court explicitly recognized two such fundamental rights under the state's Law of the Land Clause (Article I, Section 19) of the North Carolina Constitution:

• a parent's right to control the upbringing of their child, including medical decisions;

• an individual's right to bodily integrity, defined as the “right of a competent person to refuse forced, nonmandatory medical treatment”.

The dissenting opinion argued that the PREP Act's broad language and purpose demonstrate a clear intent to preempt all state law claims for loss related to covered countermeasures, including constitutional claims.

PREP Act Preemption: The central legal question is whether the federal PREP Act, which provides immunity from liability related to the administration of covered countermeasures during a public health emergency, preempts the plaintiffs' state law claims.

The Court acknowledges the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dictates that federal law can preempt state law when Congress intends to do so. However, it also emphasizes the presumption against preemption, particularly in areas of historic state police power.

The dissenting opinion highlights the PREP Act's broad language, stating it preempts "any provision of law or legal requirement that— (A) is different from, or is in conflict with, any requirement applicable under this section; and (B) relates to . . . the prescribing, dispensing, or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure..." (42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(b)(8)).

"Corum Claims": The plaintiffs asserted "Corum claims" for violations of their constitutional rights. The Court assumes their validity for the purpose of the opinion, referencing Corum v. Univ. of N.C., which established a common law cause of action when existing relief does not sufficiently address a constitutional violation. The Court emphasizes the judiciary's duty to protect state constitutional rights: "It is the state judiciary that has the responsibility to protect the state constitutional rights of the citizens; this obligation to protect the fundamental rights of individuals is as old as the State.”

Interpretation of "Claims for Loss" under the PREP Act: A key argument by the plaintiffs, which the Court finds convincing, is that their state constitutional claims are not "claims for loss" as intended by the PREP Act's immunity provision.

The Court analyzes the definition of "loss" in the PREP Act, which includes examples like "death, physical, mental, or emotional injury, illness, disability, loss of function, or loss of or damage to property." (42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a)(2)(B)). The Court argues that the examples of "loss" are tort-like in nature, suggesting that Congress intended the immunity to apply to traditional tort claims.

The Court states, "Loss under tort law, though serious in its own right, is not equivalent to loss in the constitutional sense. Tort law protects the people from each other under a system of sometimes arbitrary rules created by judges over a span of centuries. In contrast, the state constitution protects the people from the government."

Therefore, while the PREP Act might preempt the plaintiffs' battery claim (a tort), it does not preempt their claims for constitutional violations.

Federalism and State Sovereignty: The ruling underscores the importance of federalism and the reserved powers of the states, particularly concerning fundamental rights and family law. The Court emphasizes that Congress's intent to preempt state law must be "clear and manifest."

The Court quotes The Federalist No. 45, highlighting that state powers extend to matters concerning the "lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

Regarding family law, the Court notes the Supreme Court's historic reluctance to interfere, stating that it is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Berger provides a very clear explanation of the nonsensical sweeping grant of immunity given by PREP Act to the point of shielding outright wrongful acts. Of course, we know that the PREP Act has been put in place intentionally to do just that. I am encouraged that the judge seems to recognize the wrong here. I am quoting the opinion in full:

Justice BERGER concurring. I concur fully in the majority opinion as “forced medication is a battery, and there is a long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 703 (1997). That legal tradition is rooted in the Lockean notion of self-ownership – that bodily autonomy is the height of personal freedom and fundamental property rights, provided however that your actions do not harm others. See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (each individual “has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself”). I write separately to note that the sweeping grant of immunity in the PREP Act seems contrary to this basic understanding.

The government’s reading of the Act appears to override state consent laws such that intentional torts may be cloaked with immunity when the harm inflicted falls short of death or serious physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(d)(1). But shouldn’t immunity under the PREP Act be predicated on a lawful administration of a covered countermeasure? Consider the following: you’re waiting for your morning coffee at the local café. While standing with other customers, a healthcare official authorized to administer a covered countermeasure walks in and injects everyone in the coffee shop without asking or otherwise obtaining consent. All have been the victim of a battery. But under the government’s reading of the PREP Act, unless death or serious physical injury results, the healthcare worker has blanket immunity for these intentional acts.

Common sense tells us that although the grant of immunity under the Act is broad, it is not limitless. The statute on its face appears to encourage beneficial conduct. However, the PREP Act could be understood as immunizing forcible administration of medication similar to the scenario described above, if not worse. Given the fundamental principles articulated by Locke and echoed in Glucksberg, it is difficult to concede that the PREP Act confers immunity for outright wrongful acts.

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Riggs wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority's interpretation undermines the clear intent and broad scope of the PREP Act's immunity provision.

The dissent emphasizes the use of the word "any" in describing preempted state laws and the expansive definition of "covered persons."

"Usage of the unambiguous word 'any' throughout this section shows a plain and clear intention to preempt and immunize against all causally linked State law claims for loss that conflict with the PREP Act, regardless of whether they sound in tort, equity, a state constitution, or any other body of State law."

The dissent then argues that allowing plaintiffs to reframe tort claims as constitutional violations to avoid PREP Act immunity creates a "glaring loophole."

Allowing plaintiffs to skirt around the immunity granted by the PREP Act by simply recasting their otherwise-preempted claims as state constitutional injuries would create a glaring loophole that undermines the very protections Congress intended to provide.

I certainly hope this identified “loophole” expands from now on to the size of the entire 100M+ injured population in the US. The PREP Act is an utterly unconstitutional piece of garbage and must be repealed.

In Conclusion:

This ruling has significant implications for the scope of the PREP Act's immunity in North Carolina, and hopefully, sends a signal to other states where there some judges with some conscience may still exist. It suggests that individuals in the state may still pursue claims against covered entities for violations of their fundamental rights under the state constitution, even if those claims arise from the administration of covered countermeasures during a public health emergency.

With all this being said, the PREP Act is an atrocity, a license to kill, injure, and assault children with poisoned needles. It is utterly unconstitutional (both, at the state and federal level). This was recognized from the beginning by Senators Biden, Clinton, Kennedy and Byrd, as identified by

Katherine Watt

in this excellent article. Please read what these individuals had to say about monstrous violation of the Constitutional rights enabled by this law, right before they treasonously voted “yes” for its passage:

Senators Kennedy, Biden, Clinton, Byrd, denouncing PREP Act on Dec. 21, 2005, and then committing treason by voting for it the same day.

The main wrong of the PREP Act is the existence of the PREP Act. It authorizes a covert war on the American people and the people of other countries by poisoning them with adulterated and misbranded substances labeled “vaccines” or other “medical products”.

It's also true that PREP Act violates the Constitution of North Carolina, every other state in the nation, and the US Constitution in all the ways that were described by Senators Biden, Clinton, Kennedy and Byrd in 2005, and by many others since.

To quote Katherine Watt, the PREP Act must be repealed because:

To the extent that Congress and anyone else frames the overall situation and the laws enabling it as being about public health, communicable disease control, national security and medical interventions, (rather than about treason and war) they also sustain and build moral/ideological support for what's done in the name of those things as being legitimate exercises of police power to protect the population and the nation.

Previous articles discussing PREP Act:

Open Letter to the HHS Secretary, RFK Jr.

Update on CHD Lawsuit Challenging Government's License to Kill (PREP Act)

Breaking: The lawsuit v Pfizer by TX Attorney General, Ken Paxton is dismissed

Reviewing the DOD Contracts for Covid "Countermeasures"

Brook Jackson's case dismissed by Judge Truncale.

You can't inject your bioweapon and have it too!

Art for today: Daffodils, oil on panel, 9x12 in.