In Vermont, a young schoolboy was injected with a emergency use "covered countermeasure" against his and his parents' express refusals. Officials claimed "mistake"; the family filed suit. The trial court dismissed all claims and on appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court opined that all Respondents are immune from suit under the "Public Readiness and Preparedness Act ("PREPA"). The Vermont Supreme Court misapprehended PREPA's scope, and the framework it intends. A decision that defines the scope of PREPA preemption and immunity would be very useful to courts, authorities and litigants who struggle beneath the current tangled jurisprudence, much of it poorly reasoned.

Under PREPA, "a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability" for "all claims… caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from" administration of a "covered countermeasure." This immunity is conditioned on compliance with emergency use protocols and all public health guidance of the "Authority Having Jurisdiction."

Whether the Vermont Supreme Court has construed PREPA's immunity beyond Congress' intention?

Whether the Vermont Supreme Court has improperly construed the Public Readiness and Preparedness Act's (PREPA) immunity provisions beyond Congressional intent