Read our series on 2025 State Constitutional Trends. All cases are available curated State Case Database.
Five years after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, state courts are still answering questions about the extent to which the government can implement emergency measures without hitting the constitutional guardrail. Without strong federal leaders, the pandemic has pushed state government responses and questioned the extent of legal authority to respond to emergencies. The state Supreme Courts of Iowa, Louisiana and North Carolina ruled this year on the constitutionality of vaccinating children without parental consent, immunization of first responders, and suspension of court deadlines.
Parental consent to vaccinating children
The minor student and his mother sued the North Carolina county board of education and operators after the student was given the Covid-19 vaccine on a clinic-run site without consent from the student or parent. The question was whether nonconsensual vaccinations violated the constitutional freedom of mothers and parental rights under the state constitution, as well as the physical autonomy of students.
In March, the majority of the North Carolina Supreme Court supported the constitutional agenda. Happel v. Education Committeefinds that state constitutional clauses (known as the Law of Land Clauses) that ensure proper processes and equal protection protect both the parental right to control child development and the right to physical integrity. The court also held that the disclaimer of the Public Preparation and Emergency Measures Act, a federal law that protects drug manufacturers from financial risks in public health emergencies, only covers tort injuries and did not preempt the state constitutional claims of students and mothers.
In dissent, Judge Alison Riggs, joined by Justice Anita Earls, criticized him for “clearly rewrite” to “clearly rewrite” to eliminate the state’s constitutional claims from a broad comprehensive immunity from litigation and liability under federal and state laws regarding all losses established under the Emergency PrayAdenss Act. Additionally, Riggs, on the one hand, condemned the state constitutional rights “divorce from physical autonomy” of state constitutional rights “arbitrarily defined without explicit principles,” and applied “arbitrarily” the parent’s right to direct the development of a child on the other.
First Responder Immunity
The Louisiana Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of the Louisiana Health Emergency Rights Act disclaimer and was enacted to provide a tort exemption to first responders during the Covid-19 pandemic, preventing patients, who are patients, from suing healthcare providers for claims of medical negligence.
The court has entered Welchv. UnitedMedical HealthWest-New Orleans In March, the disclaimer of the Act was reasonably linked to the state’s interests in ensuring access to health care in a health emergency and therefore did not violate the state’s constitutional provisions that ensure access to courts, appropriate relief, and legitimate processes. The court said the provision is a public welfare law enacted to protect the health and safety of all Louisiana citizens in emergencies, and that it ensures access to healthcare by limiting the liability of healthcare workers.
The court also ruled that the provisions did not violate the prohibition on special laws of the state constitution. This is intended to prevent Congress from giving benefits to narrowing the economic elite, and instead requires laws that apply equally to all members of the regulated class. The courts apply the provisions that apply to all healthcare providers (persons of a legal class) to lawful classes rather than merely special numbers. Finally, the court dismissed the fictitious constitutional issue as not applicable outside of the First Amendment context.
Extending deadlines for bringing state judicial action
In response to the onset of the pandemic, the Iowa Supreme Court has issued a supervision order that will halt the deadline for opening a district court case for 76 days between March and June 2020. The driver sued for damages in connection with the accident violated the separation of authority and affected the legitimate process of rights. They further argued that the court should instead apply the standard two-year restrictions laws to these types of cases and dismiss the case as it is prohibited from time.
The court was held in February Rivasv. Brownell that the fee provision did not violate the separation of power. Addressing the obstacles facing the legal system during an unprecedented global health emergency, the court said it fell head-on to exercise “overview and administrative control” across all state courts” in the constitutional power of the Supreme Court. The court added that 22 state high courts issued emergency orders during the Covid-19 pandemic, which affected the operation of the statutory restrictions period. Two other state high courts in Maryland and Michigan faced constitutional challenges for such provisions, the court noted, and upheld both.
••••
Five years later, the Covid-19 pandemic continues to pass through state courts, sparking an ongoing constitutional battle over privacy, power and government limitations. Last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court allowed bar owners to pursue constitutional challenges to governors in pandemic lockdown-related losses under the state’s constitutional provisions that guarantee the right to earn a living. State courts are not far from unleashing the legal heritage of Covid-19.
Chihiro Aizaki is an advisor to the Brennan Judicial Center’s Democracy Program.
Suggested quote: Ishima Chihiro, Case Trends: State Courts continue to tackle Covid-19 policiessᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (September 10, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-pork/analysis-opinion/case-state-tate-cours-grapple-continue-covid -9 – policies-0
