If I am reading this correctly, the answer is yes.
Note: I'm not a lawyer, never been to law school, took a law class, read a law book etc.
We'll start with Lawrence Tribe, who is a lawyer, has gone to law school, has taken a few law classes, has read a few law books (he's even written a few, I believe). He tweeted:
You can follow the links to here - Judge Easterbrook's decision in the Seventh Circuit in Indiana. This is the second paragraph of the decision:An easy application of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): https://t.co/TU6RpXoAAY
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) August 16, 2021
Given Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which holds that a state may require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox, there can’t be a constitutional problem with vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 [aka COVID-19].
So what's this Jacobson v. Massachusetts from 1905?
You can read it here. Some highlights:
The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health. [Emphasis added.]
And:
We are not prepared to hold that a minority, residing or remaining in any city or town where smallpox is prevalent, and enjoying the general protection afforded by an organized local government, may thus defy the will of its constituted authorities, acting in good faith for all, under the legislative sanction of the State. If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.
The United States Supreme Court, 1905.
