One seminal case, often cited with respect to the States authority to regulate risks, is Jacobson v. Massachusetts [197 U.S. 11 (1905)] (Wing, Mariner, Annas, & Strouse, 2007) which involved the authority of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts regarding vaccination, as pursuant to the United States Constitution.
““The Revised Law of the Commonwealth, c. 75, § 137, provide that “the board of health of a city or town if, in its opinion, it is necessary for the public health or safety shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants thereof and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever, being over twenty-one years of age and not under guardianship, refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars”.” (Wing, et al, p.52)
There was an exception provided “…children who present a certificate, signed by a registered physician that they are unfit subjects for vaccination. § 139” (Wing, et al, p.52)
In response to that statute the Board of Health of Cambridge, Massachusetts adopted the following regulation on February 27, 1902:
“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 of the city who have not been successfully vaccinated since March 1, 1897, be vaccinated or revaccinated.” (Wing, et al, p.53)
Jacobson, the defendant, refused to receive a smallpox vaccination as mandated by the statute citing as follows:
“…that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; 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.” (Wing, et al, p.54)
As a result the question considered by the Court as stated by Mr. Justice Harlan was:
“Is the statute, so construed, therefore, inconsistent with the liberty which the Constitution of the United States secures to every person against deprivation by the State?” (Wing, et al, p.53)
After deliberation, The United States Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Board of Health in Cambridge, Massachusetts to require vaccination against smallpox during an epidemic.