As governments worldwide promote vaccination to protect public health, questions often arise.
Can authorities forcibly vaccinate individuals? And what does the law actually permit? While landmark cases like Jacobson v. Massachusetts(1905) provide a foundation, the legal landscape is nuanced balancing public safety with individual rights.
In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Massachusetts’ authority to require smallpox vaccination during an outbreak, imposing a $5 fine on those who refused. Crucially, the Court recognized this as a regulatory power, states can mandate vaccination and enforce penalties but do not have explicit authority to physically force vaccination on unwilling individuals.
Since then, courts have continued to affirm states’ broad power to regulate vaccination, particularly for school attendance, while maintaining constitutional protections against excessive coercion:
In Zucht v. King (1922), the Supreme Court upheld a school’s right to exclude unvaccinated children, reinforcing vaccination requirements for education access.
Phillips v. City of New York (2015) reaffirmed that school vaccine mandates could stand despite religious objections, emphasizing the state’s role in preventing disease outbreaks.
"In 2019, during a measles outbreak in New York City, a court upheld the city’s emergency vaccination order issued by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio, rejecting a legal challenge from residents. The court found that the city’s public health powers permitted such action under the circumstances."
Across the world, similar principles apply. Here in Australia, “No Jab, No Play” and “No Jab, No Pay” laws tie vaccination status to access to childcare, preschool, and certain government benefits. These laws don’t force vaccination outright but create strong incentives by restricting access to services for unvaccinated children, reflecting an indirect mandate approach.
This raises an important legal question ~ Can governments do indirectly what they cannot do directly? In other words, is conditioning access to services an acceptable workaround if direct compulsory vaccination is legally questionable?
Legal principles generally hold that authorities cannot circumvent legal limits through indirect means a concept known as the “indirect means” or “evasion” doctrine. However, in the realm of public health, courts have often allowed such indirect measures, recognising them as reasonable and proportionate tools to protect the wider community, especially when direct physical force is neither practical nor socially acceptable.
Thus, while Australia’s vaccination laws do not physically compel vaccination, they operate within accepted legal frameworks by conditioning participation in government programs on vaccination compliance. This approach has effectively maintained high vaccination rates without resorting to forced vaccination.
In summary, courts have consistently upheld governments’ regulatory power to require vaccination and enforce compliance with penalties or access conditions but remain cautious about authorising physical force. The legal balance protects both public health and individual rights, shaping vaccination policy as a careful negotiation rather than an absolute mandate.
As vaccination debates continue, understanding these legal boundaries helps clarify what governments can, and cannot, legally do to safeguard community health. If there is a penalty for refusing a compulsory vaccination it is clear there is no power as the statute is not absolute and provides a mechanism to avoid the administering of the vaccine, sometimes it is a small price to pay to keep your health intact.
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SCHEDULE 2
The Australian Consumer Law
(1) A person must not use physical force, or undue harassment or coercion, in connection with:
(a) the supply or possible supply of goods or services; or
(b) the payment for goods or services;