Measles Outbreak From 2019 Used as Precedent for mass
==Vaccine=
State and Local Authority Over Vaccination
Under the federalist system of the United States, state governments have the general authority, within
constitutional limits, to enact laws “to provide for the public health, safety, and morals” of the states’
inhabitants. In contrast to this general police power, as discussed below, Congress’s power to legislate is
confined to those powers enumerated in the Constitution.
The states’ general police power to promote public health and safety encompasses the authority to require
mandatory vaccinations. Pursuant to this authority, states and localities have long enacted various
compulsory vaccination laws for certain populations and circumstances, including for school children and
certain health care workers and in cases of public health emergency. In the early part of the 20th Century,
the Supreme Court twice considered constitutional challenges to such mandatory vaccination
requirements. Each time, the Court rejected the challenges and recognized such laws to fall squarely
within the states’ police power. In 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts upheld a state law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require the
vaccination of persons over the age of 21 against smallpox, determining that the vaccination program had
a “real and substantial relation to the protection of the public health and safety.” In doing so, the Court
rejected the argument that such a program violated a liberty interest that, under more modern
jurisprudence, would likely have been asserted as a substantive due process right. Less than two decades
later, in Zucht v. King, parents of a child who was excluded from school due to her unvaccinated status
challenged the local ordinance requiring vaccinations for schoolchildren, arguing that the ordinance
violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on
Jacobson, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutional challenges, concluding that “it is within the
police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination” and that the ordinance did not bestow
“arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health.”
All 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, currently have laws requiring specified vaccines for
students. This requirement is generally subject to certain exemptions, which vary from state to state.
While all student immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons (e.g., if a child is
allergic to vaccines or immunocompromised), most but not all states grant religious exemptions for those
whose beliefs counsel against immunization. Sixteen states also provide a broader philosophical
exemption for those who object to immunizations because of personal, moral, or other beliefs. While
compulsory vaccination requirements have faced legal challenges since Jacobsen and Zucht, courts have
consistently rejected these challenges and given considerable deference to the use of the states’ police
power to require immunizations to protect the public health. A number of relatively recent decisions, for
instance, have concluded that a state is not constitutionally required to provide a religious exemption,
upholding compulsory vaccination laws that provide only a medical exemption. In states that provide a
religious exemption and where parents have filed suit to challenge their unsuccessful invocation of the
exemption, courts, applying the relevant state law, have, at times, scrutinized whether their objections to
vaccination are based on a sincere religious belief.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10300.pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-12-2019-more-than-140-000-die-from-measles-as-cases-surge-worldwide