Statement of Facts of Mr. Russell on the Possible Suit Against the State - Case Study Example

Memorandum Re: Question presented Based on the constitutional provisions for rights and liberties and restrictions, and the s’ authority to make legislations and to protect welfare of the public such as in cases of controlling communicable diseases that are significant calamities, would Mr. Russell Dalrymple have a viable argument in court that the norovirus vaccination requirement failed the public health necessity holding of Jacobson? Short answer Mr. Russell would not have a valid argument because the statute is consistent with the constitution’s restriction of liberty that it provides in the 14th amendment, based on the Jacobson v Massachusetts’ case.

Statement of facts Viral gastroenteritis, caused by norovirus, has been an epidemic in the nation, including the capital of South Caledonia, affecting communities such as schools, residential complexes, and emergency shelters for humanitarian aid, and causing illnesses such as fever, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, during its outbreak. There have however been limited cases of fatalities and victims are able to recover a few days after its onset. Secondary consequences such as restrain from work when the virus infects people or as people stay at home to tend to victims.

A vaccine was developed for the infection and the Food and Drug Administration authorized for suitability for human use and for effectiveness in controlling the infection. The vaccine has no adverse effects and was approved for people above three years. The South Caledonia legislature then passed a law that would compel people to receive the vaccination, at the state’s cost, and fine a person who failed to receive the vaccination a sum of $ 750, unless there is a valid state exemption. Mr. Russell has been notified that he must receive the vaccine but he does not qualify for an exemption and do not wish to pursue it.

He therefore seeks advice on possible suit against the state. Discussion Mr. Russell plans to sue the state for protection of his right of autonomy in order to avoid liability for not receiving vaccination against the viral gastroenteris. He relies on the provisions of the 14th amendment that provides that states shall not enact laws that infringe a citizen’s rights and liberty nor shall states deprive such rights without due process (Guminski, 2009). There are however other amendments that limit the rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment provides that no right shall be interpreted to deny others their rights and the Tenth Amendment gives states powers such as legislations that are not reserved to the national government and are not limited by the constitution. The case of Jacobson v Massachusetts establishes a precedent to Russell’s case. In Jacobson’s case, the courts upheld a statute that provided for mandatory vaccination against the constitution’s provision for liberty and noted that a person’s constitutional rights may be restrained if such rights endanger other people (Nash and Williams, 2010).

The facts of Russell’s case identify constitutional liberty and statute restriction as well as dangers to public welfare and health because of the communicable infection and are therefore subject to the precedent. Mr. Russell may try to convince the court of insignificance of the infection as an epidemic and argue that it is not fatal and only last for a few days and therefore not a threat to other people’s rights but the court is likely to rely on the precedent and dismiss the case. Conclusion Based on the facts, constitutional provisions of the 14th, 9th, and 10th amendments, the statute, and effects of the infection on people’s health and secondary effects, Russell is likely to lose the case against the state.

References Guminski, A. (2009). The constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities of the American people: The selective incorporation of the bill of rights, the refined incorporation model of Akhil Amar, Dred Scott, National Citizenship and its implied privileges and immunities, the second amendment right, and much more. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Nash, M. and Williams, A. (2010). Handbook of public protection. New York, NY: Routledge.