A Guilford County mother’s long-running fight over what she calls a forced COVID-19 shot for her son is officially back on in the trial court. A North Carolina Court of Appeals panel has sent her lawsuit, filed with her son, back to a Guilford County judge after the family alleged that 14-year-old Tanner Smith was given a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in August 2021 despite his objections and without his mother’s written consent. The move comes on the heels of a March 21, 2025 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling that revived the family’s state-constitutional claims.
The three-judge appeals panel filed a 14-page opinion on June 17, 2026, written by Judge April C. Wood and joined by Judges Allegra K. Collins and Jeffery K. Carpenter. The court said the family’s complaint plausibly alleges violations of the state constitution and ordered the case back to the trial level so a judge can decide whether Old North State Medical Society was “clothed with the authority of the State” for purposes of a Corum claim, according to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Supreme Court limited PREP Act immunity
In March 2025 the North Carolina Supreme Court partially reversed an earlier dismissal and drew a bright line around the federal PREP Act, which shields many vaccine providers from certain lawsuits. The justices held that the Act’s immunity covers tort injuries but does not wipe out state-constitutional claims. Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote that the state constitution protects both a parent’s right to make medical decisions for her child and an individual’s right to bodily integrity, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
How the family says it happened
The appeals opinion recounts the day the dispute began. On August 20, 2021, Smith went to a school-run COVID testing site after a cluster of cases among his football teammates. His father stayed in the car while clinic staff tried to call Smith’s mother for consent. When staff could not reach her, one worker allegedly told another to “give it to him anyway,” and a Pfizer vaccine dose was administered over Smith’s objections, according to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
What a Corum claim requires
Under North Carolina law, a direct constitutional lawsuit known as a Corum claim is available only in narrow circumstances. A plaintiff has to allege three things at the outset: (1) action by the state, (2) a colorable violation of the state constitution and (3) no adequate alternative remedy under state law. The state Supreme Court has recently clarified that pleading those elements is a threshold showing that allows constitutional claims to move forward to the trial court, as explained in the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing, documented by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
What happens next
The appeals court instructed the trial judge to decide whether Old North State Medical Society was effectively exercising state authority and, if so, whether the alleged constitutional violations hold up on the facts. At the same time, the panel reiterated that the PREP Act’s immunity still blocks traditional tort claims such as battery. A local report summarizing the opinion noted that the trial court will now have to dig into the fact-specific questions the appeals judges could not resolve at the dismissal stage. According to WBT/Carolina Journal, the ruling sends the case back to Guilford County Superior Court for those proceedings.
Local reaction and stakes
Guilford County Public Schools did not respond to a request for comment, according to the North State Journal. The plaintiffs’ case, if the trial judge concludes Old North State Medical Society was acting as the school’s agent, could effectively narrow when private health providers working in school settings are insulated by federal immunity and could influence how North Carolina courts balance parental rights against public-health efforts.
The lawsuit now returns to Guilford County Superior Court, where judges will sort through disputed facts, the clinic’s role and whether constitutional remedies are warranted. Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to draw close attention from school systems, medical providers and legal observers across the state.
