A Dec. 2 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) includes an image of a news headline that states, "Schools Can Force-Vaccinate Children Against Parents' Wishes, State Supreme Court Rules." It also includes a photo of an X post claiming a 6-year-old boy was "forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school."
The Instagram post received more than 2,000 likes in 11 days, and similar versions have also circulated on the platform.
More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page
The Vermont Supreme Court ruling this post references doesn't permit schools to "force-vaccinate" students, it addresses whether a school was civilly liable for accidentally vaccinating the wrong student. Although the boy was vaccinated without his parents' consent, court documents describe the incident as unintentional.
The headline featured in the post comes from Slay News, which has previously published misinformation that USA TODAY has debunked. In this case, the story and headline mischaracterize a court action that was about civil liability in a specific, unique circumstnace, not setting policy on forced vaccinations.
The claim stems from a July 26 Vermont Supreme Court ruling related to a 6-year-old boy who was vaccinated against COVID-19 without his parents' consent during a 2021 state-sponsored clinic at his school. The child's father spoke with an assistant principal days earlier and said he didn't want his son vaccinated, but the school mistook the boy for another student and vaccinated him, court records show.
The parents sued the district, but justices on the state's high court determined the boy's parents couldn't sue school and state health workers who administered the vaccine, since the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act protected them from civil liability.
The Vermont Supreme Court found that mistakenly vaccinating the wrong student wasn't enough to show willful misconduct -- the only exception to immunity granted under the emergency preparedness act. The boy's parents also never made an official claim of willful misconduct or said the vaccine harmed their son, the justices noted.
"We conclude that the (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act) immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case," the justices wrote in their ruling.
The law grants certain legal immunities to people working to combat public health emergencies, but those protections don't apply in cases of proven willful misconduct, according to the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. The administration defines willful misconduct as actions that are intentional, lack justification, and where the risk of harm outweighs the potential benefits.
Contrary to the post's assertion, the Vermont ruling didn't change federal or state law, said Allison Winnike, an attorney and regional director of the Network for Public Health Law.
The ruling's impact is narrow, agreed attorney William Martucci, who leads the national employment litigation and policy group at Shook Hardy and Bacon.
"The Vermont Supreme Court held in a very limited fashion that there is immunity under (the emergency preparedness act) to state lawsuits," Martucci said.
Winnike worked on the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, the first of four laws addressing bioterrorism and public health threats. The preparedness act at the center of the Vermont Supreme Court case was part of the same series of laws.
In this case, the act provided civil liability immunity to the school while it hosted the vaccination clinic. The Department of Health and Human Services declaration that activated that immunity was specific to COVID-19 countermeasures - not all vaccines, Winnike said.
"That (the emergency preparedness act) declaration does not include other childhood vaccines and for those, usual liability protections apply," she said.
Fact check: Lenacapavir treats and prevents HIV, it does not cure infection
Vaccine consent requirements for minors vary by state. Juveniles generally can't consent to their own health care, and Vermont doesn't have a statute explicitly allowing minors to consent to any vaccines without a parent or guardian's permission, Winnike said.
The Instagram user did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment, and the X user whose post was included could not be reached. Slay News did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment.
Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.
USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta.