Episode
Should SCOTUS Revisit Its 120-Year-Old Vaccine Precedent?
- Podcast
- Unwritten Law
- Published
- Jul 29, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 1206
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/unwritten-law-7233280/episodes/should-scotus-revisit-its-120-year-old-vaccine-precedent/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/unwritten-law-7233280/should-scotus-revisit-its-120-year-old-vaccine-precedent.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
In this episode of Unwritten Law , NCLA President and Chief Legal Officer Mark Chenoweth and Senior Litigation Counsel John Vecchione discuss NCLA's Supreme Court amicus brief in Boysen v. PeaceHealth , a case asking the Court to revisit Jacobson v. Massachusetts , its landmark 1905 vaccine mandate decision. The conversation examines how Jacobson —which upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement more than a century ago—was relied upon by courts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to uphold modern vaccine mandates. John explains why NCLA argues that today's courts have expanded Jacobson far beyond its original facts, applying it to vaccines that do not prevent transmission and to mandates carrying consequences far more severe than the modest fine at issue in the 1905 case. Mark and John also discuss the constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the significance of natural immunity, emergency use authorizations, and why they believe the Supreme Court should clarify the limits of Jacobson now—before another public health emergency forces courts to confront these issues under crisis conditions. The episode explores why Boysen v. PeaceHealth could provide the Court with an important opportunity to define the constitutional boundaries of public health mandates for the modern era.