The COVID Vaccine: Immunity from Disease, and Legal Liability

Spring 2026

Isabella Terranova

Edited by: Alexander Cristofi

Balancing the population’s right to bodily autonomy and collective safety is one of the government's most challenging tasks. Vaccinations are perhaps the clearest manifestation of this dilemma, becoming an intensely polarizing issue for the American public during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic created immense pressure to develop and distribute vaccines quickly, but the comprehensive legal protections afforded to vaccine manufacturers have raised serious concerns about their lack of accountability to the American people.

Since vaccines are frequently mandated by local governments, schools, employers, and are more or less required for participation in society, the public expects them to be safe and rigorously studied. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), vaccine manufacture usually takes 10–15 years [1]. Prior to the COVID vaccine, the most rapidly distributed vaccine was the mumps vaccine, which became available to the public after 4 years of research [2].

The COVID vaccine was released after less than 1 year of development, generating an immense amount of skepticism from the public [3]. The pandemic was a serious issue that demanded a solution, but this rapid vaccine development was completely unparalleled. Public distrust steadily grew as widespread COVID vaccine mandates accompanied the government’s incompetence, restrictions of public discourse, and protection of profit-driven vaccine manufacturing companies [4].

During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine manufacturers such as Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Johnson & Johnson were granted immunity from legal liability by allowing them to avoid litigation in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) [5]. Through the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Congress established the VICP for individuals who have been harmed by vaccinations. The VICP was formed to protect manufacturers from lawsuits that might threaten their ability to produce immunizations, as well as to provide compensation to those who suffered adverse reactions caused by vaccines [6].

In invoking the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005, the government granted Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Johnson & Johnson unprecedented blanket protections [7]. The alternative avenue for those who have experienced COVID vaccine-induced injuries is through the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) established under the PREP Act, which makes the process of obtaining compensation for vaccine injury substantially more difficult [8]. The CICP’s unconstitutionality and conflicts of interest allow entities like Pfizer to evade their responsibility to aid those injured by vaccines.

Now that the pandemic is no longer an imminent threat to public safety, the VICP should be expanded to include the COVID vaccine. No companies should be above the law. To ensure accountability, the COVID vaccine should qualify as one of the vaccines covered by the VICP, and the unlawful CICP should be abolished. 

In 1986, Congress established the VICP as a special federal court, aiming to protect vaccine manufacturers from damaging lawsuits, while also providing those injured by vaccines the chance to seek compensation. When a vaccine manufacturing company is found liable for a vaccine-related injury in the VICP, settlements are funded through a special tax that the government excises on vaccines. This system allows pharmaceutical companies to stay afloat and continue producing vaccines, while also compensating their victims [9].

Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Johnson & Johnson’s immunity from legal liability in the VICP raises important questions about accountability, especially considering how the government did not issue a formal public warning regarding the vaccine’s potential side effects. Following the release of the COVID vaccine in 2021, healthcare officials monitored reactions to the vaccine through a system called VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Established by the CDC and FDA in 1990, VAERS allows citizens to self-report any negative experiences associated with recent vaccinations [10]. This system, once trusted and promoted by the CDC, was criticized for being untrustworthy and biased during the pandemic. Granted, the pandemic was an extremely polarizing political moment, but the immediate discrediting of VAERS data, when it had previously been a viable source of vaccine-related information, warrants further examination. 

VAERS data is pertinent to the COVID vaccine because the database recorded shockingly high numbers of adverse reactions, and even deaths, in response to the injection. Between 2020 and 2022, the VAERS database reported 900,522 injuries [11]. While reports submitted to VAERS are not verifiable nor clinically supported, these numbers nonetheless warrant serious concern, especially considering that issues highlighted by VAERS are widely understood to be underreported. Through the self-reporting system, CDC officials were made aware of the vaccine’s potential to cause myocarditis, a condition triggering inflammation of the heart muscle [12]. Myocarditis, though often benign, can be fatal [13]. Early signals of the vaccine provoking myocarditis should have been reported publicly as soon as possible by the CDC. 

Despite awareness of the cardiac risks associated with the vaccine, health officials failed to promptly warn the public about these complications. The CDC continued to receive news about spikes in myocarditis following vaccine injections, with Israel being one of the most significant sources of those reports. Because Israel had vaccinated around 70% of its population at the time and does not rely on the VAERS database, its testimony is extremely significant [14]. An email exchange between Israeli and CDC health officials discloses the CDC’s knowledge of a myocarditis problem: “The Israeli National Focal Point is noticing a large number of reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people, following the administration of the Pfizer vaccine. The Israeli National Focal Point is requesting a Point of Contact from the CDC and FDA to discuss the issue” [15].  

Normally, if a risk is identified with a vaccine or medication, the CDC issues a public warning through the Health Alert Network (HAN), a system in which all states and most local governments are registered to receive direct reports. Reports of vaccine-induced myocarditis spiked from domestic and foreign sources, with VAERS data from May 2021 showing “255 reports of myopericarditis for the Pfizer vaccine, 156 reports of myopericarditis for the Moderna vaccine, and 22 reports of myopericarditis for the Johnson and Johnson vaccine” [16]. Analysis of this data prompted some CDC officials to consider issuing a HAN, being the CDC’s primary health alert system, but emails reveal that it was decided against, for fear of being “alarmist” [17]. This decision stands in marked tension with the CDC’s stated commitment to transparency. In June 2021, the CDC issued a clinical report to one of its scientific journals, mentioning the risk of myocarditis, but failing to directly alert health officials as a HAN would [18]. 

Due to the healthcare system’s relative silence on myocarditis, freedom to discuss adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine would have been beneficial to the public. Not only did the government avoid properly alerting the public about certain risks associated with the COVID vaccine, but it also played an active role in controlling public discourse online. During the pandemic, citizens who expressed concerns or skepticism about its management were often silenced by the State, which pressured various social media platforms to quiet those spreading what it deemed ‘misinformation.’ Mark Zuckerberg, founder of the company Meta, stated that the government compelled Meta’s platforms to censor ‘misinformed’ posts [19].

A Congressional report corroborates this fact, stating that government-coerced media platforms censored viewpoints including “those which questioned or criticized: (a) the efficacy and/or safety of the Covid vaccines; (b) the origin of Covid; (c) the efficacy of societal lockdowns and social distancing; (d) the efficacy of mask mandates; (e) the necessity of vaccinating children and infants; and (f) the necessity of school shutdowns and virtual learning from home” [20]. The State’s interference with free speech should be of utmost concern to every citizen. Having the ability to question or criticize the government’s actions is what keeps a society free, and such suppression raises serious First Amendment concerns and undermines the adversarial discourse essential to governance. Even if certain individuals were spreading misleading information, the government should never assume the role of controlling public speech. This should be left to social media companies’ independent judgment. 

The CDC’s failure to transparently caution the population, coupled with the government’s attacks on free speech, have contributed to the injustice that those injured by the COVID vaccine are facing. The injustice is worsened by the legal protection afforded to pharmaceutical companies. Manufacturers of the COVID vaccine are currently protected by the federal government from being sued. The COVID vaccine is not covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and can only be litigated in the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program [21].  

Established by Congress through the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, the CICP makes it considerably more difficult for those injured by vaccines to win their cases. A central flaw of the CICP is that it cannot, in any reasonable sense, be classified as a court of law. Instead, it functions as an administrative extension of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and is absent of any judicial authority. The HHS is a federal organization, which serves as both the sole adjudicator and defendant of cases brought to the CICP. Compensation for those injured by the COVID vaccine is drawn from the HHS’s budget, and because the HHS also represents the respondent, it will be incentivized to avoid compensating the plaintiff — an obvious conflict of interest. In contrast, the HHS is only a defendant in cases presented to the VICP, and specialized, impartial judges determine the outcome of cases [22]. 

This conflict of interest results in a lack of compensation that the HHS has issued to victims. The CICP has compensated only 6% of its cases, compared to the VICP which has compensated between 33–40% [23]. Additionally, the CICP’s proceedings demonstrate a clear lack of transparency: “petitioners don’t have the chance to review evidence used against them, question the government’s expert witnesses, get copies of their reports, obtain discovery from the vaccine makers, present their own expert witnesses or appeal adverse decisions in a court of law” [24]. The multifaceted corruption of the CICP undoubtedly violates the Constitution, particularly the Sixth Amendment, which establishes the right to a fair trial, along with the right to confront and summon witnesses [25]. 

An easy solution to these injustices would be adding the COVID vaccines, provided by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, to the list of the 16 vaccines covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Court. The VICP is preferable to the CICP, seeing as it helps avoid a major conflict of interest, promises a higher likelihood of compensation, and holds pharmaceutical companies, who possess strong financial incentives, accountable. 

Even the VICP is not without fault, as many have complained that its maximum settlement amount of $250,000 for a vaccine-caused death is too low [26]. For reference, Pfizer’s current estimated net worth is $153.7 billion dollars, and the company generated $81.3 billion in the year 2021 alone [27]. Pharmaceutical companies like these are more than able to generously compensate those injured by vaccines — they simply do not want to. These structural deficiencies raise significant constitutional and ethical concerns. The CICP should be abolished, in addition to an augmentation of the VICP’s maximum victim compensation payout. 

As expressed by CDC officials who feared that a HAN would generate distrust, there is concern that correcting the injustices of the CICP would encourage vaccine-hesitancy. By acknowledging the obvious misconduct of both the government and the pharmaceutical industries involved, the population could become increasingly fearful of getting their mandated immunizations. But what certainly does make vaccine-hesitancy worse is the reluctance to compensate the individuals who have experienced an adverse reaction to an injection, on top of a government-sponsored effort to delay proper warnings and silence the skeptics. By amending an obvious injustice, the government could reassure the public of their purported dedication to transparency and safety by expanding the VICP to include the COVID vaccine. 

Vaccines, though we would like them to be, are never entirely risk-free. For most routine vaccines, the time-intensive research process provides some reassurance of their safety. The COVID vaccine, unlike many others, cannot claim the validation of time, considering that it was developed in less than a year [28]. The consequences of its novelty have been evident through VAERS data, as well as through other independent sources warning of vaccine-induced myocarditis [29]. The CDC’s failure to issue a HAN about the myocarditis risk is incompetent at best, and deceitful at worst. Perhaps the public would have been able to generate awareness surrounding the myocarditis risk, had it not been for government intervention. Due to government censorship in clear violation of the First Amendment, Americans were prohibited from speaking freely about the pandemic response. These issues contribute to the demand that those injured by the COVID vaccine be properly compensated. 

Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson’s immunity from legal liability through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a significant injustice [30]. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program is severely unconstitutional, and creates the precedent that big businesses are above the law [31]. By prolonging the addition of the COVID vaccine to the VICP, those who deserve justice are ignored, while the elites of pharmaceutical companies continue to benefit financially. The protected companies can more than afford to compensate those injured by vaccines, and would have been able to during the pandemic, since the VICP already acts as a safeguard against these companies going bankrupt [32]. The government’s effort to keep COVID vaccine manufacturers exempt from scrutiny and legal liability is cause for immediate action. The VICP must be expanded to include the COVID vaccine, as it should have from the outset, and the CICP should be abolished. The government serves to protect the population, not to protect corporations from accountability.

References

[1] Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, How Vaccines Are Developed and Approved for Use, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (Aug. 10, 2024), https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/how-developed-approved.html.

[2] Maya Prabhu, The mumps story: the second fastest vaccine ever developed, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (VaccinesWork, Apr. 22, 2022), https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mumps-story-second-fastest-vaccine-ever-developed.

[3] Sandy Cohen, The Fastest Vaccine in History, UCLA Health (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/the-fastest-vaccine-in-history.

[4] Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Vaccines & Immunizations: Requirements and Laws, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/php/requirements-laws/index.html (last visited Apr., 2026).

[5] MacKenzie Sigalos, COVID Vaccine Side Effects: Compensation and Lawsuits, CNBC (Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html.

[6] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Health Res. & Servs. Admin., About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation (last visited May 31, 2026).

[7] Kevin J. Hickey, The PREP Act and COVID-19, Part 2: The PREP Act Declaration for COVID-19 Countermeasures, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB10730 (Jan. 3, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10730.

[8] MacKenzie Sigalos, COVID Vaccine Side Effects: Compensation and Lawsuits, CNBC (Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html.

[9] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Health Res. & Servs. Admin., About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation (last visited May 31, 2026).

[10] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., About VAERS, https://vaers.hhs.gov (last visited Apr. 30, 2026).

[11] Yiming Li, Jianfu Li, Yifang Dang, Yong Chen & Cui Tao, Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccines in the United States: Temporal and Spatial Analysis, PubMed Central (Jul. 15, 2024), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11287098/.

[12] S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affs., Failure to Warn: How Federal Health Agencies Downplayed the Risk of Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination (May 21, 2025), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.05.21-PSI-Majority-Staff-Interim-Report-Failure-to-Warn.pdf.

[13] Mayo Clinic, Myocarditis, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352539 (last visited Apr. 25, 2026).

[14] Itamar Poran, Amjaad Abu Mokh, Daniella Vronsky, Genady Drozdinsky, Bar Basharim & Noa Eliakim-Raz, Outcomes of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated COVID-19 Patients in Israel During the Omicron and Delta Waves—A Retrospective Cohort Study, PubMed Central (Apr. 11, 2023), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10086101/.

[15] S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affs., Failure to Warn: How Federal Health Agencies Downplayed the Risk of Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination (May 21, 2025), https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025.05.21-PSI-Majority-Staff-Interim-Report-Failure-to-Warn.pdf.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, June 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm (July 9, 2021).

[19] PBS NewsHour, Zuckerberg Says the White House Pressured Facebook to Censor Some COVID-19 Content During the Pandemic (Aug. 27, 2024), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic.

[20] H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Massive Government Censorship During and About Covid, https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118565/documents/HHRG-119-JU00-20250903-SD034-U34.pdf (Sept. 3, 2025).

[21] Junying Zhao, Firat Demir, Pallab K. Ghosh, Austin Earley & Myongjin Kim, Reforming the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program for COVID-19 and Beyond: An Economic Perspective, PubMed Central (Apr. 4, 2022), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8977129/.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Alison Frankel, Column: COVID Vaccine ‘Black Hole’ Injury Claims Is Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Says, Reuters (Oct. 10, 2023, [time]), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-covid-vaccine-black-hole-injury-claims-is-unconstitutional-lawsuit-says-2023-10-10/.

[25] U.S. Const. amend. VI.

[26] Nora Freeman Engstrom, Unpacking the Shortcomings of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), Health L. (May 25, 2017), https://health.jotwell.com/unpacking-the-shortcomings-of-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/.

[27] Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2021 Results (Ex. 99, filed Feb. 8, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78003/000007800322000003/pfe-12312021xex99.htm.

[28] Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, How Vaccines Are Developed and Approved for Use, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (Aug. 10, 2024), https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/how-developed-approved.html.

[29] Itamar Poran, Amjaad Abu Mokh, Daniella Vronsky, Genady Drozdinsky, Bar Basharim & Noa Eliakim-Raz, Outcomes of Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated COVID-19 Patients in Israel During the Omicron and Delta Waves—A Retrospective Cohort Study, PubMed Central (Apr. 11, 2023), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10086101/.

[30] Kevin J. Hickey, The PREP Act and COVID-19, Part 2: The PREP Act Declaration for COVID-19 Countermeasures, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB10730 (Jan. 3, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10730.

[31] Junying Zhao, Firat Demir, Pallab K. Ghosh, Austin Earley & Myongjin Kim, Reforming the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program for COVID-19 and Beyond: An Economic Perspective, PubMed Central (Apr. 4, 2022), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8977129/.

[32] U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Health Res. & Servs. Admin., About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation (last visited May 31, 2026).