May 13, 2015 – Jacobson v Massachusetts is a landmark 1905, US Supreme Court case that laid the groundwork for mandatory vaccination in time of catastrophic epidemic of “smallpox.” The ruling referenced a wide-scale and deadly epidemic that was killing and debilitating a broad swath of the population. At the time of the Court’s ruling, the justices could not have envisioned mass vaccination of every childhood illness–many of which physicians have found to confer benefits to the development of the immune system in children, as well as also confer lifelong immunity to illnesses, such as measles and chickenpox.
Notably, Jacobson did not mandate only physical compliance with vaccination–it allowed for a fine, which in 1905 was $5. In this century, such a fine would approximate $100. It is clear that the Court saw this “fine” as the “price” to be paid for “freedom” from they believed was an oppressive statutory rule of mandatory vaccination. And of course, the reasons for exemptions were numerous then as it is now: religious objection, pre-existing condition or disability, autoimmune disorders, family propensity to develop overreactive syndromes–much of which modern-day science can determine and even verify by genetic testing.
Because the Jacobson court recognized the myriad reasons for exemptions and mandates could not be absurd or lead to injurstice, even with limited scientific diagnostic testing of its time–the court mandated that only a fine could be placed on those who would not — or could not comply. The Court did not mandate anything more.
Notably, the court held:
“All laws,” this court has said, should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of that character.”
Looking back on the meaning and purpose of the Jacobson ruling, could legislatures of this century be overstepping the guidance of Jacobson by pushing mandates? Pushing requirements for public school enrollment? What is the price for those conspiring to remove free choice? Under Jacobson could conspiring to remove “free choice” be viewed as overly-oppressive, with the propensity to lead to absurd consequences?
With the guidance of Jacobson, what citizens may see as overly oppressive state legislatures mandating compliance, could very well be viewed by Courts as “overreaching” as they remove vaccine exemptions, mandate additional compliance structures, and oppress individual freedoms. Such conduct could very well be seen not only to contravene the spirit and guidance laid out in Jacobson v Massachusetts, but constitute an unlawful usurpation of individual rights conferred by the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While some see mandates as “tyranny” as a continued erosion of individual rights and freedoms by an “intrusive government”– future courts could see an expansion of mandates as either acceptable as part of a growing and more diverse society OR as cruel and unusual punishment, usurpation of liberty, and infringement on the fundamental rights of life and liberty conferred by the US Constitution.
The real question to be asked: How will the Courts of the future rule…and what will be the legacy of Jacobson and its progeny be going forward? Future rulings will determine individual autonomy–if freedom as we know it will prevail, or if the thumb of oppression will weigh heavily on the scale of justice and be outcome determinative.