This 115-year-old Supreme Court Case could determine if states can force you to wear a mask
The 1905 decision relates to vaccines
Wearing a mask has become the new normal amid the coronavirus pandemic, but whether or not the government can force you to wear one has become a topic of contention.
The argument pits the power of government to protect the public’s health against the Constitution’s protection of civil liberties. As people consider challenging mask mandates in the courts, there’s a Supreme Court decision against a Massachusetts man who refused vaccination during a smallpox outbreak that keeps coming up as a reference point for legal battles.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts could be used in the argument when trying to justify the government’s abilities to curb one’s liberties in the interest of public health as it expands on the state’s capacity to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals and general welfare of residents. This is otherwise known in constitutional law as a state’s police power.
In 1902, the city asked the board of health in Cambridge, Massachusetts for advice to mitigate the smallpox outbreak. The board adopted a regulation that those who had not been vaccinated should be, the board asking the city to make vaccinations a requirement.
Read the regulation below:
“Whereas, smallpox has been prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and still continues to increase; and whereas, it is necessary for the speedy extermination of the disease that all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated; and whereas, in the opinion of the board, the public health and safety require the vaccination or revaccination of all the inhabitants of Cambridge; be it ordered, that all the inhabitants habitants of the city who have not been successfully vaccinated since March 1st, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.”
A criminal complaint was then filed against Jacobson in the state’s lower courts. According to court records, the 21-year-old refused to comply with the requirement.
Jacobson argued the vaccine mandate infringed upon his federal rights as outlined in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution also pointing to the clauses that no state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S. He was arguing the state was overstepping its police power.
As the case moved through the courts, Jacobson’s defense was that the smallpox vaccination “quite often” caused serious and permanent injury to the health of the person vaccinated and occasionally in death.
The court ruled that epidemic played a huge factor in the decision, saying the widespread smallpox outbreak justified a general rule for vaccination, saying the state was working to protect public health and safety.
https://www.clickorlando.com/features/2020/07/01/this-115-year-old-supreme-court-case-could-determine-if-states-can-force-you-to-wear-a-mask/