Jacobson v. Massachusetts
| Jacobson v. Massachusetts | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 6, 1904 Decided February 20, 1905 |
|
| Full case name | Henning Jacobson, plaintiff in error v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
| Citations | 197 U.S. 11 (more) |
| 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 | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan for seven members |
| Dissent | Brewer and Peckham |
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 the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
Pastor Henning Jacobson already lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home in Sweden. The national law made vaccination mandatory and when he was a child, he was vaccinated for smallpox. Although the efforts to eradicate smallpox were successful in Sweden, he did not agree with the methods. He claimed it caused a "great and extreme suffering" that he would have to endure for the rest of his life. Like his experience, one of his sons was vaccinated as a child as well and "suffered adverse effects" from it. Jacobson and his wife were thus resistant when it came to mandatory vaccinations in Massachusetts.
A leader in his community, Jacobson was one of the few who resisted mandatory vaccinations for smallpox in the early 20th century in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While many were pleased to hear about a vaccine for smallpox, others were alarmed by the idea of being stabbed by a needle and having cowpox injected inside of them. Jacobson was distraught by this and took his case to the Supreme Court in 1905 against mandatory vaccinations. He refused the vaccine stating it was an "invasion of his liberty." Efforts to end the smallpox epidemic included mandatory vaccination. According to the Supreme Court documents, the argument against Jacobson was that the " mandatory smallpox and mumps vaccination [was] constitutional." Those who refuse vaccination would be prosecuted. The fine for refusal of the vaccination was a $5 monetary fine, equivalent to about $130 today. Pastor Jacobson refused vaccination by claiming that "he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations." Because of his refusal of the vaccination, Jacobson was fined $5 and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Fourteenth Amendment was brought up during the case on individual liberty. The case showed that the State was "restricting one aspect of liberty" by forcing people to get vaccinated. In its ruling in support of the Massachusetts law, the Supreme Court identified two primary rationales. One was that "the state may be justified in restricting individual liberty... under the pressure of great dangers" to the safety of the " general public." By identifying the smallpox epidemic as a danger to the general public, individual rights and liberty were subordinate to the state's obligation to eradicate the disease. Jacobson had also argued that the law requiring vaccination was "arbitrary or oppressive." The Court rejected the argument by indicating that mandatory immunization in the face of epidemic was neither but insisted that vaccination was a measure for "getting to their goal of eradicating smallpox." Massachusetts was one of only 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws.
...
Wikipedia