Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Citation | 25 S.Ct. 358,49 L.Ed. 643,3 Ann.Cas. 765,197 U.S. 11 |
Decision Date | 20 February 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 70,70 |
Parties | HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err. , v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.
The Revised Laws of that commonwealth, chap. 75, § 137, provide that
An exception is made in favor of 'children who present a certificate, signed by a registered physician, that they are unfit subjects for vaccination.' § 139.
Proceeding under the above statutes, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 27th day of February, 1902, adopted the following regulation: '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.'
Subsequently, the board adopted an additional regulation empowering a named physician to enforce the vaccination of persons as directed by the board at its special meeting of February 27th.
The above regulations being in force, the plaintiff in error, Jacobson, was proceeded against by a criminal complaint in one of the inferior courts of Massachusetts. The complaint charged that on the 17th day of July, 1902, the board of health of Cambridge, being of the opinion that it was necessary for the public health and safety, required the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof who had not been successfully vaccinated since the 1st day of March, 1897, and provided them with the means of free vaccination; and that the defendant, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refused and neglected to comply with such requirement.
The defendant, having been arraigned, pleaded not guilty. The government put in evidence the above regulations adopted by the board of health, and made proof tending to show that its chairman informed the defendant that, by refusing to be vaccinated, he would incur the penalty provided by the statute, and would be prosecuted therefor; that he offered to vaccinate the defendant without expense to him; and that the offer was declined, and defendant refused to be vaccinated.
The prosecution having introduced no other evidence, the defendant made numerous offers of proof. But the trial court ruled that each and all of the facts offered to be proved by the defendant were immaterial, and excluded all proof of them.
The defendant, standing upon his offers of proof, and introducing no evidence, asked numerous instructions to the jury, among which were the following:
That § 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 States, and tended to subvert and defeat the purposes of the Constitution as declared in its preamble;
That the section referred to was in derogation of the rights secured to the defendant by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and especially of the clauses of that amendment providing that no state shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; and
That said section was opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.
Each of defendant's prayers for instructions was rejected, and he duly excepted. The defendant requested the court, but the court refused, to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. And the court instructed structed the jury, in substance, that, if they believed the evidence introduced by the commonwealth, and were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged in the complaint, they would be warranted in finding a verdict of guilty. A verdict of guilty was thereupon returned.
The case was then continued for the opinion of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. Santa F e Pacific Railroad Company, the exceptions, sustained the action of the trial court, and thereafter, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of $5. And the court ordered that he stand committed until the fine was paid.
Messrs. George Fred Williams and James A. Halloran for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 14-18 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Frederick H. Nash and Herbert Parker for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 18-22 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question (§ 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. § 462.
We also pass without discussion the suggestion that the above section of the statute is opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, as observed by Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court in Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 202, 4 L. ed. 529, 550, 'the spirit of an instrument, especially of a constitution, is to be respected not less than its letter; yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words.' We have no need in this case to go beyond the plain, obvious meaning of the words in those provisions of the Constitution which, it is contended, must control our decision.
What, according to the judgment of the state court, are the scope and effect of the statute? What results were intended to be accomplished by it? These questions must be answered.
The supreme judicial court of Massachusetts said in the present case: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Bimber's Delwood, Inc. v. James, 20-CV-1043S
-
Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Education
... ... who object on grounds of transgression of religious beliefs (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643), prohibit ... ...
-
Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.
... ... 244 [upholding law against polygamy]; Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 170-171, 64 S.Ct. 438, 444, 88 L.Ed. 645 [permitting ... to be compelled in the face of religious objections (see, e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, 38, 25 S.Ct. 358, 366, 49 L.Ed. 643 ... ...
-
Mass. Bldg. Trades Council v. United States Dep't of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. (In re MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin.)
... ... MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, et al. (21-7000); BENTKEY SERVICES, LLC ; PHILLIPS MANUFACTURING & TOWER COMPANY, et al. (21-4028); COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. (21-4031); ANSWERS IN GENESIS, INC. (21-4032); ... Zucht v. King , 260 U.S. 174 (1922), and Jacobson ... v. Massachusetts , 197 U.S. 11 (1905), Petitioners and ... ...
-
Vaccine Mandates and Religion at the Supreme Court
...for more than twice as long. As we pointed out here and here, for well over a century, since Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), no appellate court has ever held that any governmental vaccine mandate must contain a religious exemption. Jacobson affirmed a vaccine ......
-
Are Federal Contractors Immunized From Vaccination Litigation? Mitigating The Risk Of Civil Liabilities Arising Out Of The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
...particular details of any given vaccine mandate are properly vested in the political branches. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 30, 25 S. Ct. 358, 363, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905) (“It is no part of the function of a court or a jury to determine which one of two modes was li......
-
Federal Court Confirms that Anti-Vaxxers Do Not Have a Constitutional or Statutory Right to Endanger Everyone Else.
...compulsory vaccination.” 2022 WL 3577112, at *11 (quoting Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176, (1922), and citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)). Hoping to avoid this dispositive caselaw, the plaintiffs argued that COVID-19 vaccinations are “gene modification therapies” rather ......
-
Vaccination – No Religious Exemption Required
...an exemption, and that has been litigated a lot. Here are the Supreme Court decisions on point. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (affirming the constitutionality of criminal enforcement of a vaccine mandate that had no religious exemption; no religion-specific a......
-
Constitutional Challenges to the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
...Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19 Vaccinations , 73 ADMIN. L. REV. ACCORD 375, 376 n.5 (2022). 2. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). For an exhaustive analysis of the Jacobson case, see Josh Blackman, The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 70 BUFF. L. R......
-
Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
...established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts , 197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905) (upholding the right of States to compel adults to vaccinate against infectious disease); see also Compagnie Francaise De Navigation A V......
-
The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amensments
...in the Taft Court, 78 B.U.L. Rev. 1489 (1998). [158] Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 391-96 (1898). [159] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26-33 [160] 208 U.S. 412, 418-23 (1908). [161] 291 U.S. 502, 529-33 (1934); id. at 552-59 (McReynolds, J., joined by Van Devanter, Sutherland &......
-
Gunfight at the New Deal Corral
...a better grasp of the facts, especially when live witnesses testify. 236 By contrast, an appellate court Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 27 (1905) (“The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body; and......