美国强制疫苗接种案的司法审查标准——雅各布森案的法治遗产及其争议

Judicial Review Standards for Cases of Compulsory Vaccination in the US--Legal Legacy of the Jacobson Case and Controversies Over It

强制疫苗接种法律的合宪性纠纷是美国公共卫生法治的重要议题。雅各布森案作为美国联邦最高法院受理的第一起强制疫苗接种案,以合理性审查标准为基本立场,肯定了州在维护公共安全和健康上所拥有的权力的正当性,承认为了公共安全和健康的合法利益而牺牲个人的某些自由是合理的。百余年来,雅各布森案及其宽松的审查标准作为一个标杆,使法院在公共卫生等事关国民生命安全和社会秩序的重要议题上始终以其冷静的态度做出了积极选择。但由于美国联邦最高法院在强制接种疫苗案中一直坚持最低限度的合理性审查标准,雅各布森案在美国一直备受争议。近年来,有研究提出应该对疫苗区分医学必要性和实际必要性,以细化合理性审查中的合理手段因素,并提出了免于被强制接种疫苗权和拒绝非自愿疫苗接种权等概念,为强制疫苗接种迈向严格司法审查标准带来了更多思考。

The constitutionality of compulsory vaccination law has become an important issue in the US public health legal system. During the trial of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the first case of compulsory vaccination in the United States, the Supreme Court, based on the review standards of rationality and through an argumentation framework consisting of legality of purpose and rationality of means, upheld the legitimacy of the exercise of state police power in maintaining public security and health, and ruled that it was justifiable to sacrifice certain individual freedom for the sake of the legal interests related to public security and health. In fact, with respect to public security and health, the Court is inclined to support the priority of the measures taken by various legislative and administrative organs. Over the past a hundred years, the Court, in accordance with the loose review standards drawn from Jacobson, has remained calm and chosen positively when dealing with public security agenda and, therefore, succeeded in safeguarding the rights of citizens, building society and maintaining order, and greatly benefiting not only the US itself but also the whole world. The nation as a brand-new liberal society evolves. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court strongly insists that states are entitled to exercise the police power for the common good purpose of public security and health, which undoubtedly interferes with citizens’ personal freedom. As a result, Jacobson has always been controversial in the U.S. With the advancement of medicine and vaccination technology, new vaccines designed to tackle with non-airborne diseases have been released from time to time. Whether compulsorily vaccination complies with the review standards and jurisprudence set up by Jacobson or not is still a question to be answered. Some scholars suggest theoretically to classify vaccination by medical necessity and practical necessity, and bring up other concepts such as the right to be free from compulsory vaccination, the right to refuse unwanted vaccination and the right to refuse vaccination derived from the right to refuse medical treatment, thereby laying a solid theoretical foundation for compulsory vaccination to embrace strict scrutiny criteria. So far, Jacobson and its rational review standards have not met with any challenge yet. Although NFIS v. OSHA(2022) invalidated the vaccine mandate issued by the federal government, it involved only constitutional interpretation, not the application of the review standards. The legal legacy left by Jacobson to public health governance will continue in the US.