INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS NOT ABSOLUTE: A Century of Supreme Court Precedence

The U.S. Supreme Court has established and maintained this precedent for more than a hundred years: individual liberty does not extend to the endangerment of other American’s lives.

The precedent-setting court case was Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in 1905, where the Court stated: “States have the authority to enact quarantine laws of every description in their legitimate exercise to protect the health and safety of citizens.”

In 1905, the world was fighting smallpox, a deadly virus. As part of the fight against smallpox, the Massachusetts state government ordered mandatory vaccinations against smallpox for all citizens. Jacobson, a citizen of Massachusetts who had been vaccinated against smallpox when he was in Denmark, did not want his children vaccinated because he believed it would cause his children (who had no known health conditions supporting his claim) adverse effects. 

At the Supreme Court, Jacobson argued that mandatory vaccinations were a violation of his individual liberty. The Court, however, found that personal liberties can be suspended when “the safety of the general public may demand.”

The Jacobson precedent was reaffirmed. In 1922 when the Supreme Court ruled that a school COULD refuse admission to an unvaccinated child, and in subsequent cases involving public health throughout the century since.

Thus, individual liberty is NOT absolute, and is subject to reasonable regulations as the safety of the general public may demand. Jacobson v. Massachusetts instructs that the constitutional rights of the individual may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency. Individual rights do not supersede the safety of the public at large.

That means you do NOT have the right to shop in a store without wearing a government-mandated mask during a pandemic. The fact that you would adhere to store rules such as “no shirt, no shoes, no service” that essentially prohibit entrance based on a person’s ability to purchase said items, but claim that a mask-wearing rule infringes on your personal liberty when it has already been established by the Supreme Court that you do NOT have that liberty in a pandemic, simply demonstrates your willful ignorance of the health and safety of the general public. 

As of today, at least 138,600 Americans are DEAD. This is a PANDEMIC. If a store tells you that masks are required and they even provide a mask for you to wear in order to enter the store and you still refuse to wear a mask, I think anyone in that store has the right to call the police to come remove your maskless face from the premises. And if you have a condition or disability that makes mask-wearing a hardship for you (unlikely), then your shopping rights are reasonably restricted to curbside. 

There is no such thing as an individual liberty that allows you to knowingly endanger other people’s lives. Be a grownup. Be a responsible human being. Wear a mask.