RALEIGH — The N.C. Supreme Court has ruled in a pair of COVID-era lawsuits involving UNC student fees and a teen vaccinated without parental consent.
In a unanimous ruling the North Carolina Supreme Court found that students from UNC-Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University can proceed with their breach of contract lawsuit which seeks refunds for mandatory fees paid when the two campuses closed during the pandemic in fall 2020.
The case, Lannan v. UNC Board of Governors, is one of several COVID-related lawsuits being reviewed by the NC Supreme Court.
The NC Supreme Court’s ruling slightly modifies a 2022 Court of Appeals order that said the case could proceed.
“We agree with the Court of Appeals that sovereign immunity does not foreclose plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against the Board at this stage of litigation,” wrote Associate Justice Trey Allen. “However, we read the lawsuit to allege the existence of express — not implied — contracts between plaintiffs and the Board.”
During oral arguments, lawyers for the universities argued that students were warned fees wouldn’t be refunded, while the plaintiffs’ attorney maintained that individuals could not register as students without paying those fees. Per a past 2023 filing, the UNC System indicated it could face the loss of “tens of millions of dollars” if the students ultimately prevail.
Allen’s opinion also noted that the student plaintiffs’ case may not succeed due to that reasoning, writing that “[T]he Board correctly observes that many of the fee descriptions in the amended complaint lack any explicit promise to provide services to students who paid those fees.”
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that a Guilford County teenager and his mother can proceed with their lawsuit against the local school board and the Old North State Medical Society over a forced COVID-19 vaccination of the teen in 2021.
The case involves 14-year-old Tanner Smith, who was vaccinated without parental consent when a clinic worker reportedly administered the shot despite the teen objecting.
The ruling reverses lower court rulings that had dismissed the case based on immunity provided by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act.
Chief Justice Paul Newby, writing for the Republican majority, determined that the PREP Act’s immunity only covers tort injuries, not constitutional violations, and recognized parents’ fundamental rights to make medical decisions for their children and individuals’ rights to bodily integrity.
“As an initial matter, the ambiguity of the PREP Act’s language requires us to consider whether Congress intended to include even unconstitutional conduct within the immunity’s broad scope. Defendants ask us to adopt this literal reading,” wrote Newby. “Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that Congress could not have intended to immunize—indeed, even incentivize—unconstitutional conduct.”
“We agree with plaintiffs,” Newby wrote. “The literalist interpretation defendants urge us to adopt today defies even the broad scope of the statutory text. Under this view, Congress gave carte blanche to any willful misconduct related to the administration of a covered countermeasure, including the State’s deliberate violation of fundamental constitutional rights, so long as it fell short of causing “death or serious physical injury.”
Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. wrote a concurring opinion questioning whether PREP Act immunity should apply to unlawful administration of vaccines.
The two Democratic Associate Justices, Anita Earls and Allison Riggs, dissented. Both argued the majority was incorrectly interpreting the PREP Act’s language that includes providing broad immunity “from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss.”
The cases will now return to the state appeals court.
