Jacobson v. Com. Of Massachusetts, Case Study Example

This case is entitled Jacobson V. Com. Of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 and involved Henning Jacobson as the plaintiff and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as the defendant. This decision was argued on December 6, 1904 and made on February 20, 1905. This was a United States Supreme Court case that aimed to address the complaint of the plaintiff that he would not have to comply under Massachusetts state law to become vaccinated. However, the defendant, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had several laws in place that had stated that vaccinations and revaccinations were required for the health of the community and for public school attendants and that those over the age of 21 who refused to comply with this law would be fined $5. Furthermore, these vaccinations would be provided by the state for free. However, children are exempt from this requirement if they are able to demonstrate that their doctor deems them unfit for vaccination due to an existing health complication. An additional statute deemed that all unvaccinated citizens were required to be vaccinated to eliminate Smallpox from the population. The plaintiff, Henning Jacobson, refused to agree with this requirement, questioning its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court is being asked to see this case because Jacobson argued that “the 137 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the preamble to the Constitution of the United [197 U.S. 11, 14]”. This case began in an inferior court in Massachusetts before traveling to the supreme judicial court of the state. Jacobson continued to appeal the court’s decision on the basis of this law’s constitutionality. Thus, this was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not Massachusetts could require its citizens to receive a vaccination.

After the initial trial, Jacobson was asked to pay the $5 fine and to receive his vaccination free of charge. However, he still fundamentally disagreed with this requirement, and even after being found guilty, took the case to higher court. The supreme court of Massachusetts also found him guilty, required him to pay the fine, and asked him to be vaccinated free of charge. The state court claimed that although Jacobson was welcome to his personal opinion, he is not a medical professional and is not able to truly understand the necessity of the vaccination. Furthermore, liberty would not exist in a situation where each individual was able to act purely based on their discretion. The vaccination was required for the overall health of the state and this decision was upheld. Thus, it was deemed legal to require vaccination when professionals viewed the particular vaccination as necessary for the good of public health.

The court ruled that Jacobson would be required to be vaccinated under Massachusetts State Law because they considered themselves to be in a public health crises due to Smallpox outbreak. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it would be unjust to require vaccinations for everyone and that there are some cases in which the health of the individual could allow them to become disqualified from this requirement. Furthermore, it is illegal to require vaccination for just one portion of the demographic and it should not be used as a consequence of racism, such as when San Francisco required all Chinese citizens to receive a vaccination if they wished to leave the city.

This impact of this decision is that states can legally require their citizens to become vaccinated. In many situations, children must comply with this to participate in public schooling or to attend summer camp programs. This sparked the modern debate over whether vaccinations should be required, which is contradicted by the belief by many parents that doing so causes disease like autism. Based on what I know about environmental health law, this decision is just. Since by not getting vaccinated an individual could take away the right to health of other citizens, requiring vaccination helps liberty more than hurting it in most cases.

Works Cited

Jacobson V. Com. Of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)