Can schools force-jab children with COVID-19 shots?

(As long as it doesn't kill or maim, yes.)

An ongoing national legal dispute regarding vaccinations of children with COVID-19 shots concerns whether school officials are immune from traditional legal claims -- particularly, battery -- when administering Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) shots without parental consent. North Carolina’s Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of parents for violating their informed consent rights in violation of a state statute. Still, even that court denied common law state claims for battery -- the physical touching of another against their will. The mainstream media has gaslit parents, claiming that public schools cannot legally force-vaccinate their children. But unless the child suffers serious bodily injury or death, they most certainly can under current rulings.

I represented the Politella family before the U.S. Supreme Court, which on February 24 declined to hear our Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging a Vermont Supreme Court ruling that my clients, whose six-year-old son was vaccinated with a COVID-19 shot despite their clear wishes that he not be, had no right to sue for common law battery. Vermont’s Supreme Court decided that my clients’ rights are eclipsed by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which provides legal immunity to pharmaceutical companies and those administering shots related to these experimental vaccines. The Act allows a federal administrative remedy only in the event the shot is 1) administered “willfully,” and 2) causes “death or serious bodily injury.”

In the absence of the PREP Act, parents could sue for traditional damages if their child is given medical treatments without their consent. The Vermont Court did not consider constitutional liberties to parental control or bodily integrity. This led to claims that the court’s ruling would permit forced jabs absent death or serious bodily injury, prompting a slew of national media outlets to “rate” that claim as “false.”

But it isn’t false -- it is the law. Maine’s highest court recently joined the Vermont Supreme Court’s determination in Hogan v. Lincoln Medical Partners, ruling that the parents of a five-year-old who was administered a COVID-19 vaccine without their consent had no legal recourse for that battery without death or bodily injury resulting. The Maine court went further than Vermont, ruling that neither constitutional rights to bodily integrity nor parental consent were unconstitutionally infringed by their interpretation of the PREP Act. There is no distinction in this construction of federal law between a forced jab done deliberately versus a negligent mistake.

As I explained in an analysis for the Brownstone Institute, several national media outlets, including the Associated Press, USA Today, and Snopes, claimed it was not true that schools could force-jab children under these rulings. But this was media misinformation, as demonstrated in the language of the March 21, 2025 North Carolina decision Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education:

“….the bodily integrity right is not absolute. Courts across the United States have overwhelmingly held that the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment does not imply a fundamental right to disregard a vaccine mandate.”

The Happel court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s state battery claims. The concurring opinion expressed concern that forced jabs (“intentional torts”) are thus sanctioned:

“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… 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.

“….the PREP Act could be understood as immunizing forcible administration of medication similar to the scenario described above, if not worse.”

The Vermont court ruled the same thing: “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” It afforded no exception for deliberate child-jabbing such as may well have been committed against my clients’ six-year-old son: the family was never allowed to go to trial to find out why their child was vaccinated after specific assurances that he would not be. Might it have had something to do with Vermont governor Phil Scott’s announced monetary awards to public schools that achieved high rates of vaccination? We will never know.

Many national news outlets engaged in disingenuous, Kafkaesque logical contortions to misrepresent the impact of the Politella decision. Under all three of these state court rulings, public school children may be vaccinated deliberately against parents’ wishes with complete impunity so long as the children entrusted to their care do not die or become seriously injured.

These are unconscionable interpretations of constitutional law, and a strong incentive for “public school hesitancy.”

(Originally published at American Thinker.)