The Future of Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Modern Substantive Due Process for Public Health Preparedness

Authors

Helen S. Webster

Document Type

Student Note

Abstract

Both the threat of public exposure to Ebola in the United States in 2014 and the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in 2020 prompted states to impose quarantine and mask mandates, among other responses, to protect the public’s health. When these state actions were eventually challenged on substantive due process grounds in courts across the nation, judges struggled to determine which legal test applied when reviewing the constitutionality of the state actions. On one hand, courts considered the precedent set forth in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld a Massachusetts vaccine mandate as a valid exercise of the state’s police power. On the other hand, courts customarily review state actions challenged on substantive due process grounds using modern substantive due process, which Jacobson pre-dated. During the Ebola crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, courts applied Jacobson’s precedent in disparate ways, further muddying the waters in determining how Jacobson relates to the modern substantive due process. This Note defines the three ways courts have applied Jacobson during public health events of the last decade and defends reading Jacobson as articulating a standard that is consistent with modern substantive due process. This Note argues that this reading of Jacobson is not only logically and historically sound, but is also the best approach for ensuring a coordinated approach to address future public health emergencies, therefore promoting public health preparedness.

Recommended Citation

Helen S. Webster, The Future of Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Modern Substantive Due Process for Public Health Preparedness, 17 St. Louis U. J. Health L. & Pol'y (2024).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/jhlp/vol17/iss1/9