COVID-19 vs. 1905 Smallpox: How Jacobson Shapes Liberty #shorts

Added: 2026-05-20

[00:00:00]came COVID-19 and suddenly a 1905 smallpox case was everywhere again.

[00:00:05]Governors issued emergency orders, businesses closed, gatherings were restricted. Churches challenged capacity limits. Workers challenged vaccine or testing rules. Courts had to ask whether Jacobson still controlled the answer.

[00:00:20]Early on, many judges gave governments broad room to respond, reasoning that elected officials and health agencies needed flexibility in a fast-moving crisis. But as the pandemic continued, the Supreme Court grew more skeptical.

[00:00:34]In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn versus Cuomo, the court blocked New York's strict attendance limits on houses of worship. It did not say public health was unimportant. It said constitutional rights still require serious judicial review even during an emergency. That marked a major shift in tone. Jacobson did not disappear, but it could no longer be read as a blank check. Then, in 2022, the court split two major federal vaccine cases. In National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, it blocked a vaccine or test rule for large employers. Not because vaccination was bad policy, but because OSHA lacked clear authority from Congress. In Biden versus Missouri, the court allowed a vaccine requirement for workers at Medicare and Medicaid health care facilities, where regulation was directly tied to patient safety and the agency's authority was clearer. That is the modern Jacobson lesson. Emergency power exists. Public health matters. But courts now ask sharper questions. Who issued the rule? What authority did they have? Does it burden constitutional rights? And is it reasonable, targeted, and lawful? Jacobson still echoes, but now it asks, how far, under what law, and at what cost to liberty? That is why one smallpox case from 1905 still shapes America's biggest constitutional fights.