html (last accessed 3/19/15).2 See “The Return of the Vaccine Wars,” by David Oshinsky.http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-return-of-the-vaccine-wars-1424463778 (last accessed 2/20/15). 314Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).4131 S.Ct. 1068 (2011).5Freed GL, Katz SL, Clark SJ., Safety of vaccinations:Miss America, the media, and public health. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968002).
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, citizens challenged a Massachusetts state law requiring all persons over the age of 21 to be vaccinated against small pox. 197 U.S. 11 (1905). They argued that “a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person.”
Over the years, parents have challenged various immunization policies under the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has rejected those challenges, particularly in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26 (1905), which rejected a challenge to a smallpox vaccination mandate, and Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176 (1922), which cited Jacobson in rejecting a facial challenge to public school inoculation requirement. These cases are dispositive.