The PREP Act Must Be Repealed

This article was written by Janet Levy, and was originally published by American Thinker. It is republished it here with her permission.

Sep 03, 2025

This article was originally published HERE.

Janet Levy, MSW, MBA is a writer/activist who has written for American Thinker, The Jerusalem Post, PJ Media, FrontPage Magazine, Israel National News and other publications.

In a free society, not having to pay if one’s mistakes harm others is a significant privilege. But the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act grants broad immunity from liability to Big Pharma, distributors, hospitals and clinics, doctors, pharmacists, and paramedics whenever the government declares a health emergency. Naturally, the law also protects the government and gives it—specifically, the Secretary of Health and Human Services—nearly unlimited powers. For example, the secretary can declare an emergency based solely on his judgment without needing to provide any evidence.

Fortunately, opposition to the PREP Act—which many legal experts consider clearly unconstitutional—is swiftly gaining momentum.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has sponsored a bill to dismantle the legislation, which he calls “medical malpractice martial law.” It is currently before Congress.

Activist attorney James Roguski [correction: I am an activist, but I am definitely not an attorney] has initiated a national effort to push Congress to repeal the legislation. He asserts that the PREP Act, signed into law on December 30, 2005, was enacted under highly questionable circumstances after being appended to the end of a defense bill related to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico (scroll down to Division C of H.R. 2863).

Many lawsuits have challenged the immunity granted under the act and sought compensation for those harmed. Some cases failed, but others are still actively pursued. Prominent among these are Moms for America v. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Alicia Smith et al v. HHS (which has been taken up by React 19), and Jessica Smith et al v. HHS.

On August 29, a federal court judge reopened a similar case – George Watts, Jr., v. Department of Defense — which he had dismissed in September of last year. Watts, a 24-year-old college student, died from Covid-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, according to his death certificate. The Watts family’s attorney, Ray Flores, challenged the dismissal, arguing that only a three-judge panel could have made a decision in the case. The suit is funded by the Children’s Health Defense.

The most severe abuses protected by the act occurred during the COVID pandemic. Illnesses, other health issues, and even deaths caused by vaccines went uncompensated. Under the PREP Act, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve or temporarily fast-track any drug, device, or biological product. Mandates cannot be overturned or reviewed by courts or Congress and they take precedence over state laws. Unlike this broad immunity, an injured person does not have the right to a hearing, nor is due process guaranteed under the Constitution.

On paper, the Act does not provide immunity from liability for “willful misconduct.” However, as attorney Robert Barnes, who has long opposed the Act, explained,

…but they effectively weaken that by requiring the U.S. government’s involvement, and if they [government] don’t approve, you really can’t move forward. Instead, you are directed to this separate compensation program (Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, or CIPC), but you have no right to a hearing, no notice of the evidence, no notice of who’s deciding your case, and no information about what experts are being used. So, it’s a pure Star Chamber black hole type of proceeding, judicially — lacking the due process we require. Additionally, they deny awards in 97% of cases. When they do grant an award, the average amount is about $2,000.

Aaron Siri is another lawyer who has been opposing both vaccination and the protections provided under the PREP Act. He is involved in the Alicia Smith case and the Jessica Smith et al v. HHS case. The Alicia Smith lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Louisiana, involves eight individuals who have lost their jobs, are bedridden, or have suffered severe injury or long-term illness due to the Covid vaccine. The other plaintiff in the case is React 19, a science-based nonprofit working for those affected by Covid. The lawsuit emphasizes that “for every story told in this case, there are thousands upon thousands more, equally heartbreaking and unjust.” It states that React 19 has a growing list of “former members,” who, unable to handle the adverse effects of the vaccine, have taken their own lives.

The Jessica Smith lawsuit involves a diverse group of people, from a 10-year-old straight-A student with a black belt in Tae Kwon Do to a Harvard Medical School professor. After receiving the Pfizer COVID vaccine, the boy suffered a series of severe injuries and a permanent blood disorder, while the professor’s medical practice has been affected by a vaccine-related shoulder injury and psoriasis.

The lawsuit describes the CIPC, with its one-year statute of limitations, as a “kangaroo court” and a “Potemkin village – an elaborate façade designed to hide an undesirable reality.” It argues that the PREP Act violates citizens’ Fifth Amendment right to due process, abolishes their common law and state tort law claims, and fails the Supreme Court’s three-part test to determine if government action satisfies due process requirements. Stating that deprivation of rights is “baked into the fabric of the PREP Act,” the lawsuit asks the court to declare it unconstitutional.

The recent reopening of the case involving George Watts, Jr., underscores the tragedy of a family losing a young son due to the vaccine mandate. Watts Jr. was waiting to be vaccinated after the FDA approved the shots, but he couldn't attend class without receiving the vaccine. He ended up getting two doses of the EUA version of the Pfizer vaccine, which carries the legal standard of “may be effective.” Claiming that the vaccines met FDA guidelines, the DoD, against whom the family filed the case, cited sovereign immunity.

Similarly, the federal lawsuit filed by Moms for America, a political organization that promotes traditional American values such as family, freedom, and the Constitution, urges the court to enjoin the PREP Act – that is, nullify it by judicial order – or declare it unconstitutional. In addition to highlighting violations of common law and due process, the lawsuit states that the act, by removing all judicial oversight, disrupts the system of checks and balances among the legislature, judiciary, and executive as outlined in the Constitution. It argues that the act violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies create rules, handle legal issues, and interact with the public, and it denies citizens the right to a jury trial. A hearing before a federal judge to review the government’s motion to dismiss occurred on May 20th. Moms for America President Kimberly Fletcher has sent a letter to the DOJ requesting an opinion and is prepared to bring the organization’s challenge to the Supreme Court.

When the bill was proposed, Rep. John Conyers and Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Edward Kennedy, along with others, criticized it but voted in favor, possibly because it was an unexpected addition to H.R. 2863, a defense appropriations bill. However, soon after, Kennedy called for its repeal, saying it was a “giveaway to the drug industry.” In addition to the billions made by pharma and healthcare giants during the ‘plandemic,’ Moderna and Pfizer have generated over $100 billion in sales of the newer mRNA-based vaccines.

Four Democrats Speak Out Against The Prep Act

377KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Legislators also criticized the broad powers granted to the secretary of HHS — who could unilaterally recommend treatments, approve their manufacture, testing, distribution, and use — and the denial of hearing rights to injured parties. Nevertheless, the bill was passed 93-0 in the Senate (seven abstained), and 308-106 in the House.

Since then, the list of treatments it covers has expanded: COVID vaccines; nerve agents and insecticides; vaccines and treatments for influenza, Zika, smallpox, and anthrax; Paxlovid; ventilators; Remdesivir; masks; PCR tests; and the latest mRNA vaccines. The act has been amended 12 times, with the most recent extension lasting until December 31, 2029.

But an unconstitutional act that clearly endangers the health and lives of millions of Americans cannot be allowed to stand. To advocate for legislative action against the PREP Act, citizens can show support for Massie’s bill here, join activist-attorney Roguski’s movement here, and urge Senator Ron Johnson, who held congressional hearings on Covid injuries, to introduce a companion bill to Massie’s in the Senate.