Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Nutting v. Massachusetts

• 1901 • 183 U.S. 553 • Fuller Court
In Nutting v. Massachusetts, 1901, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a state law that required vaccination against smallpox during an epidemic. The appellant, Henning Jacobson, was a Swedish immigrant who refused to get vaccinated due to his belief that he and his son had adverse reactions to previous vaccinations in Sweden. He argued that compulsory vaccination violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights of liberty and personal autonomy. However, the court ruled in favor of Massachusetts stating...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1901
Docket: 32
183 U.S. 553
22 S. Ct. 238
46 L. Ed. 324
1902 U.S. LEXIS 731
Argued: Nov 20, 1901

Nutting v. Massachusetts

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Nutting v. Massachusetts, 1901, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a state law that required vaccination against smallpox during an epidemic. The appellant, Henning Jacobson, was a Swedish immigrant who refused to get vaccinated due to his belief that he and his son had adverse reactions to previous vaccinations in Sweden. He argued that compulsory vaccination violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights of liberty and personal autonomy. However, the court ruled in favor of Massachusetts stating public health took precedence over individual liberties under its police powers doctrine - which allows states to regulate behavior for the common good including public health safety measures such as mandatory vaccinations during epidemics.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Nutting v. Massachusetts, it was argued that the state law requiring vaccination against smallpox infringed upon personal liberty and was therefore unconstitutional. The justice contended that while states have a right to enact laws for public health and safety, this power is not absolute and should be balanced with individual rights. He asserted that mandatory vaccinations could potentially lead to other invasive medical procedures being imposed on citizens without their consent. Furthermore, he questioned whether vaccines were truly effective in preventing disease or if they posed more harm than good due to potential side effects. This perspective emphasized respect for personal autonomy over collective welfare measures enforced by the state.

Opinion written by Justice HGray
Decided: Jan 13, 1902
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms