"Persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State"

Key Principle: A states police power includes the authority to enact reasonable regulations in order to protect public health and safety.

Massachusetts, in 1902, was one of 11 states that compelled vaccination. If a specific municipality (city, county, or other local government) determined it was necessary for the public health of safety of the community, all adults over 21 would be forced to be vaccinated (at no cost). Adults who refused were subject to a $5 fine. When smallpox broke out in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the city ordered the vaccination or revaccination of all residents.

Cambridge Pastor Henning Jacobson, who was traumatized by an adverse reaction to the smallpox vaccine during his childhood in his native Sweden, refused to be vaccination. He had a sincere lifelong horror of vaccination. Jacobson believed that his family may have a genetic condition that made the smallpox vaccine particularly dangerous for them. So when Cambridge ordered the smallpox vaccine for all adults, Jacobson refused and was fined $5 (approximately $150 today). When his case came before the Supreme Court, Jacobson argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment as it was "unreasonably, arbitrary and oppressive" and that anyone who objects should be exempted, no matter the reason.

The Judges disagreed with Jacobson's argument and found that Cambridge's vaccination program did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court stated it is a basic bargain of civilization that an individual give up personal freedom in exchange for being in a civilized society. The judges reasoned that Jacobson enjoyed the benefit of his neighbors being vaccinated without personally accepting the risks inherent in smallpox vaccination. Therefore, part of the reasoning of the Court in rejecting Jacobson's claim was rejecting a "free rider" outcome.

However, the Jacobson ruling was not unlimited and laid out limits to the governments power. The Court stated that government mandates MUST be limited in time, duration and manner in order to be "so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence." It also stated that vaccination is "cruel and inhumane" for certain "extreme cases" where the individuals in "particular condition of health" but stated that Jacobson was not one such person.

Fast forward to today and where does this leave us?

Jacobson has been used to justify all types of tyranny in the COVID-19 era, from mask mandates and economic lockdowns to experimental vaccination requirements. Despite this, Jacobson does include good language that can be used to fight mandates. It's clear that the authoritarian politicians and health officials strayed into "injustice, oppression and absurd consequence."

As we head into a potential second round of mandates, including re-masking, vaccination and potentially locking down, now is the time for Jacobson to be distinguished in the Courts and for clear precedent to be set for the future.