Challenging Issues in Homeland Security

Jacobson v. Massachusetts concerns the power of a state to require and enforce vaccinations in the early 1900s. During this period of time, smallpox was widespread in many communities. The Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, §137 indicate that if a city or town board of health deem it necessary for public health and safety, it can require and enforce vaccination in the community. If children are unfit to receive vaccinations, a signed certificate must be presented by a registered physician. Individuals that had not received a vaccination since March 1, 1897, must be vaccinated (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905). 

On July 17, 1902, Jacobson (plaintiff) was charged with refusing and neglecting to comply with the vaccination requirement. This criminal complaint was preceded against by an inferior court of Massachusetts. Jacobson pled not guilty. The defendant offered proof on several occasions but it was deemed immaterial by the trial court and excluded. The prosecution offered into evidence the regulations by the local Board of Health and proof of offered vaccinations to the defendant (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905). Jacobson indicated that the Revised Laws of that Commonwealth, c. 75, §137 is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. A guilty verdict was rendered. The case then went before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for opinion. The case was argued on December 5, 1904. On February 19, 1905, the court upheld the trial court’s action and Jacobson was ordered to pay a five dollar fine. He was ordered to remain committed until the fine was settled in full (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905).

Over the last decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that persons who refuse unwanted medical treatment have an interest in liberty that is protected by the constitution.  In cases involving personal rights of people with mental disabilities and terminal illnesses, the Court has accepted a body integrity principle (Gostin, 2005). Outside the context of reproductive freedom, however, liberty interests regarding bodily integrity have not been viewed as fundamental by the Court (Gostin, 2005).  The Supreme Court instead balances personal liberty against the backdrop of state interests. Usually, the Court sides not with the individual but with the state (Gostin, 2005). The Court has ruled that authorities may force serious forms treatment on an individual who may be a risk to either themselves or others (Gostin, 2005).  The lower courts have also upheld mandatory physical exams and treatment for people with infectious disease (Gostin, 2005).  

Jacobsen started a debate over the appropriate limits of police power which is still evolving today.  Americans strongly are in support of civil liberties, but equally, they demand public health and safety protection by the state.  Possible needs for compulsory immunization in the case of counter-bioterrorism situations still loom as pending issues.  

Today, this debate is still very much alive, as are many of the diseases we vaccinate against. The Department of Homeland Security was created following the September 11th terrorist attacks. Since then, this government agency has spent billions of dollars stockpiling vaccines (Shilhavy, 2015). The Project Bioshield Act, enacted by Congress in 2004, enables the U.S. Government in acquiring these experimental vaccines. They are intended to be used on American citizens if the county declares a state of emergency (Shilhvay, 2015). This strongly parallels Jacobson v. Massachusetts. As with that case, if the government determines a need, they will distribute mandatory vaccines. Bioterrorism has become a concern and is now incorporated in Homeland Security. Experimental vaccines attained via “Bioshield” include anthrax. In 2005, this authority was used to force U.S. military personnel to receive the anthrax vaccine (Shilhvay, 2015). Bioterrorism will continue to be a threat to the United States; as such, it is likely that vaccinations and immunizations will be forced upon its citizens.  Despite a great deal of discordance with public opinion, Jacobson remains a reasoned formulation on the boundaries that exist between individual and collective public safety interests.

References

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905).

Gostin, L. O. (2005). Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 years: Police power and civil liberties in tension. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 576-581.

Shilhavy, B. (2015, February 16). Homeland security stockpiling billions of dollars of experimental vaccines. Health Impact News. Retrieved from http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/homeland-security-stockpiling-billions-of-dollars-of-experimental-vaccines/