Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Last updated

Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
Full case nameHenning Jacobson, plaintiff in error v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Citations197 U.S. 11 ( more )
25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1232
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex (1902); judgment affirmed, Commonwealth v. Henning Jacobson, 183 Mass 242 (1903)
Holding
The police power of a state must be held to embrace at least such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment to protect public health and safety.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown  · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham  · Joseph McKenna
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · William R. Day
Case opinions
MajorityHarlan, joined by Fuller, Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day
DissentBrewer
DissentPeckham

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. Jacobson has been invoked in numerous other Supreme Court cases as an example of a baseline exercise of the police power.

Contents

Background

Massachusetts was one of 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws. [1] Massachusetts law empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community. [2] Adults who refused were subject to a $5 fine (about $176 in 2023 dollars). [2] In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, adopted a regulation ordering the vaccination or revaccination of all its inhabitants. [2]

Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson had lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home of Sweden. [3] Although the efforts to eradicate smallpox were successful in Sweden, Jacobson's childhood vaccination had gone badly, leaving him with a "lifelong horror of the practice". [3] Jacobson refused vaccination saying that "he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations" as children and that Jacobson himself "had been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination". [2] Jacobson believed that his family may have some sort of hereditary condition that made the smallpox vaccine particularly dangerous. [3] Because of his refusal to get vaccinated, Jacobson was prosecuted and fined $5. [4] [5] Over the next three years until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, Jacobson argued that subjecting him to a fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing vaccination was an invasion of his liberty, the law was "unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive", and that one should not be subjected to the law if he or she objects to vaccination, no matter the reason. [2]

Decision

Henning Jacobson, 1878 Henning Jacobson, 1878.jpg
Henning Jacobson, 1878

Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. [2] The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others." [2]

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public". [2] In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety". [2] The Court noted that Jacobson had offered proof that there were many in the medical community who believed that the smallpox vaccine would not stop the spread of the disease and, in fact, may cause other diseases of the body. [2] However, the opinions offered by Jacobson were "more formidable by their number than by their inherent value" and "[w]hat everybody knows, ... [the] opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority." [2] Therefore, it was left to the legislature, not the courts, to determine which of the "two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease". [2] No one could "confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety". [2]

In conclusion, the Court acknowledged that, in "extreme cases", for certain individuals "in a particular condition of ... health", the requirement of vaccination would be "cruel and inhuman[e]", in which case, courts would be empowered to interfere in order to "prevent wrong and oppression". [2] However, the statute in question was not "intended to be applied to such a case" and Jacobson "did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was, in fact, not a fit subject of vaccination". [2] David J. Brewer [6] [7] [8] and Rufus Peckham, [9] dissented though neither published an opinion.

Precedent

Harlan's decision supported both police power and limits on the power, and his decision would be invoked to support both in later cases. He stated his nuanced opinion on the limits of government power by saying that "general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence". [10]

Subsequent developments

The anti-vaccine movement mobilized following the decision, and the Anti-Vaccination League of America was founded three years later to promote the principle that "health is nature's greatest safeguard against disease and that therefore no State has the right to demand of anyone the impairment of his or her health". The League warned about what it believed to be the dangers of vaccination and the dangers of allowing the intrusion of government and science into private life, part of the broader process identified with the Progressive Movement. The League asked, "We have repudiated religious tyranny; we have rejected political tyranny; shall we now submit to medical tyranny?". [11]

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Jacobson in Zucht v. King (1922), which held that a school system could refuse admission to a student who failed to receive a required vaccination. [12] Jacobson has been invoked in numerous other Supreme Court cases as an example of a baseline exercise of the police power, with cases relying on it including Buck v. Bell , 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities), [13] Prince v. Massachusetts , 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (limitations on parents having children distribute pamphlets in the street), Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health , 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (allowing a state to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support), Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (allowing random drug testing of students), and Gonzales v. Carhart , 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (upholding the federal "partial birth abortion" ban).

The global eradication of smallpox, brought about by an international vaccination campaign, was certified in 1980. [14] [15]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson when upholding a Texas regulation halting abortions by including it in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries, consistent with Justice Blackmun's citing of the case in Roe v. Wade . [16] (See Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on abortion in the United States.) Jacobson also has been a precedent case in justifying government face mask orders and stay-at-home orders throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. [17] [18]

The closest COVID-19-related lawsuit to a direct challenge to Jacobson was Does v. Mills, which challenged Maine's vaccine mandate for health care workers. By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court in 2021 denied relief to those who were seeking an injunction on the mandate. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vaccination</span> Administration of a vaccine to protect against disease

Vaccination is the administration of a vaccine to help the immune system develop immunity from a disease. Vaccines contain a microorganism or virus in a weakened, live or killed state, or proteins or toxins from the organism. In stimulating the body's adaptive immunity, they help prevent sickness from an infectious disease. When a sufficiently large percentage of a population has been vaccinated, herd immunity results. Herd immunity protects those who may be immunocompromised and cannot get a vaccine because even a weakened version would harm them. The effectiveness of vaccination has been widely studied and verified. Vaccination is the most effective method of preventing infectious diseases; widespread immunity due to vaccination is largely responsible for the worldwide eradication of smallpox and the elimination of diseases such as polio and tetanus from much of the world. However, some diseases, such as measles outbreaks in America, have seen rising cases due to relatively low vaccination rates in the 2010s – attributed, in part, to vaccine hesitancy. According to the World Health Organization, vaccination prevents 3.5–5 million deaths per year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vaccine</span> Pathogen-derived preparation that provides acquired immunity to an infectious disease

A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious or malignant disease. The safety and effectiveness of vaccines has been widely studied and verified. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and recognize further and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smallpox vaccine</span> Vaccine against Variola virus

The smallpox vaccine is the first vaccine to have been developed against a contagious disease. In 1796, British physician Edward Jenner demonstrated that an infection with the relatively mild cowpox virus conferred immunity against the deadly smallpox virus. Cowpox served as a natural vaccine until the modern smallpox vaccine emerged in the 20th century. From 1958 to 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a global vaccination campaign that eradicated smallpox, making it the only human disease to be eradicated. Although routine smallpox vaccination is no longer performed on the general public, the vaccine is still being produced to guard against bioterrorism, biological warfare, and mpox.

In United States constitutional law, the police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vaccine hesitancy</span> Reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated or have ones children vaccinated

Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal, of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services and supporting evidence. The term covers refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others. The scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective is overwhelming. Vaccine hesitancy often results in disease outbreaks and deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases. Therefore, the World Health Organization characterizes vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global health threats.

Vaccination and religion have interrelations of varying kinds. No major religion prohibits vaccinations, and some consider it an obligation because of the potential to save lives. However, some people cite religious adherence as a basis for opting to forego vaccinating themselves or their children. Many such objections are pretextual: in Australia, anti-vaccinationists founded the Church of Conscious Living, a "fake church", leading to religious exemptions being removed in that country, and one US pastor was reported to offer vaccine exemptions in exchange for online membership of his church.

A vaccination policy is a health policy adopted in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease. These policies are generally put into place by state or local governments, but may also be set by private facilities, such as workplaces or schools. Many policies have been developed and implemented since vaccines were first made widely available.

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government has broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities.

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 9–0, that public schools could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students from attending, even if there was not an ongoing outbreak. In the case, the school district of San Antonio, Texas enacted an ordinance that prohibited any child from attending a school within the district unless they had been vaccinated against smallpox. One parent of a student who had been excluded, Rosalyn Zucht, sued on the basis that there was not a public health emergency. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote for the unanimous court that requiring students to be vaccinated was a justified use of "police power" to maintain public health and safety.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1721 Boston smallpox outbreak</span> Disease outbreak in Boston, USA

In 1721, Boston experienced its worst outbreak of smallpox. 5,759 people out of around 10,600 in Boston were infected and 844 were recorded to have died between April 1721 and February 1722. The outbreak motivated Puritan minister Cotton Mather and physician Zabdiel Boylston to variolate hundreds of Bostonians as part of the Thirteen Colonies' earliest experiment with public inoculation. Their efforts would inspire further research for immunizing people from smallpox, placing the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the epicenter of the Colonies' first inoculation debate and changing Western society's medical treatment of the disease. The outbreak also altered social and religious public discourse about disease, as Boston's newspapers published various pamphlets opposing and supporting the inoculation efforts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vaccination policy of the United States</span> Overview of the vaccination policy in the United States of America

Vaccination policy of the United States is the subset of U.S. federal health policy that deals with immunization against infectious disease. It is decided at various levels of the government, including the individual states. This policy has been developed over the approximately two centuries since the invention of vaccination with the purpose of eradicating disease from the U.S. population, or creating a herd immunity. Policies intended to encourage vaccination impact numerous areas of law, including regulation of vaccine safety, funding of vaccination programs, vaccine mandates, adverse event reporting requirements, and compensation for injuries asserted to be associated with vaccination.

<i>Phillips v. City of New York</i> American legal case

Phillips v. City of New York, 775 F.3d 538, cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 104 (2015), was a 2015 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressing vaccination mandates and exemptions from them in New York City. The court concluded that it was within the constitutional police power of the state to mandate vaccination, and that religious exemptions were not constitutionally required. Therefore, even though the state did permit religious exemptions, it was free to provide them with limitations including the exclusion of exempted children from school during an outbreak of the disease, and requiring applicants to demonstrate the sincerity of their religious objection in order to receive an exemption.

<i>Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools</i>

Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools, 500 Fed. Appx. 16 (2012), is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding the denial of a religious exemption to mandatory vaccination sought by a parent who claimed to adhere to a non-denominational religious view without a formal doctrine.

Henry Austin Martin was an English-born American physician known for introducing the method of production and use of smallpox vaccine lymph from calves. He was the first American physician to experiment successfully with a vaccine for the bovine virus.

Klaassen v. Indiana University, was a 2021 United States federal court case in which students attending Indiana University challenged the institution's COVID-19 vaccine mandate set to go into effect in September 2021. A motion for preliminary injunction was denied by Judge Damon R. Leichty on July 18, 2021. On August 2, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also denied a motion to enjoin the mandate while Leichty's ruling was appealed. On August 12, 2021, Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied relief to the petitioners, allowing the vaccination mandate to go into effect. The case is named for lead plaintiff Ryan Klassen of Noble County, Indiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">COVID-19 vaccination mandates in the United States</span> Mandates for people to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccine mandates have been enacted by numerous states and municipalities in the United States, and also by private entities. In September 2021, President Joe Biden announced that the federal government would take steps to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for certain entities under the authority of the federal government or federal agencies. Most federal mandates thus imposed were either overturned through litigation, or withdrawn by the administration, although a mandate on health care workers in institutions receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds was upheld. All federal mandates were lifted when the national emergency was declared to have ended in May 2023. A small number of states have gone in the opposite direction, through executive orders or legislation designed to limit vaccination mandates.

The Biden administration COVID-19 action plan, also called the Path out of the Pandemic, is a substantial increase in the use of vaccination mandates as part of the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic announced by President Joe Biden on September 9, 2021, to be carried out by officials in the Biden administration. The plan included various announced prospective efforts, as well as the issuance of several executive orders.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), is a Supreme Court of the United States case before the Court on an application for a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's COVID-19 vaccination or test mandate. On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of the mandate.

References

  1. ↑ "Toward a Twenty-First-Century Jacobson v. Massachusetts" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 121 (7). The Harvard Law Review Association: 1822. May 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
  3. 1 2 3 Wilrich, Michael (2011). Pox: An American History. Penguin.
  4. ↑ Mariner, Wendy K.; Annas, George J.; Glantz, Leonard H. (April 1, 2005). "Jacobson v Massachusetts: It's Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather's Public Health Law". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (4): 581–590. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.055160. ISSN   0090-0036. PMC   1449224 . PMID   15798113.
  5. ↑ "Henning Jacobson Loses His Fight with the Board of Public Health Over Vaccination". New England Historical Society. April 13, 2020. Retrieved July 30, 2021.
  6. ↑ "News & latest headlines from AOL". Aolnews.com. Archived from the original on October 5, 2012. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
  7. ↑ "Powered by Google Docs". Archived from the original on March 7, 2012. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
  8. ↑ "Thepolitical Philosophy Of Supreme Court" (PDF). Libinfo.uark.edu. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
  9. ↑ Ely, James W. (March 11, 2008). "Rufus W. Peckham and Economic Liberty". SSRN   1105065. Social Science Research Network
  10. ↑ Willrich, Michael (2011). Pox: An American History . Penguin Books. pp.  319–329. ISBN   978-0-14-312078-0.
  11. ↑ "Toward a Twenty-First-Century Jacobson v. Massachusetts" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 121 (7). The Harvard Law Review Association: 1823–1824. May 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
  12. ↑ "Toward a Twenty-First-Century Jacobson v. Massachusetts" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 121 (7). The Harvard Law Review Association: 1824–1825. May 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 26, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2014.
  13. ↑ "Buck v. Bell, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded". Legal Information Institute . The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
  14. ↑ Fenner F (2006). Nature, Nurture and Chance: The Lives of Frank and Charles Fenner. Canberra: Australian National University Press. ISBN   978-1-920942-62-5.
  15. ↑ "Smallpox". WHO Factsheet. Archived from the original on September 21, 2007.
  16. ↑ "The 115-year-old Supreme Court opinion that could determine rights during a pandemic". CNN. April 10, 2020.
  17. ↑ "The Constitutionality of Facemasks and COVID-19 – UMCHHS". www.mdchhs.com. Archived from the original on July 18, 2020.
  18. ↑ "Are 'Stay at Home' Orders Constitutional?". Forbes .
  19. ↑ "Court turns away religious challenge to Maine's vaccine mandate for health care workers". SCOTUSblog. October 29, 2021. Retrieved October 30, 2021.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.