Case Summary 1: Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
In the early 1900s, the United States faced repeated outbreaks of smallpox, a highly contagious and often deadly disease. To prevent the spread of the illness, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, adopted a regulation requiring residents to receive a smallpox vaccination or pay a fine. Henning Jacobson refused the vaccination, arguing that the government did not have the authority to force him to undergo a medical procedure. After he was fined for refusing to comply with the law, Jacobson challenged the requirement, claiming it violated his personal liberty under the Constitution.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices considered the conflict between individual freedom and the government’s responsibility to protect public health. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution protects personal liberty but also noted that individual rights may be limited when exercising them could harm others. The justices reasoned that during a public health crisis, states have the authority to enact reasonable laws to protect the population's safety and well-being, even when those laws impose limits on personal choice.
Case Summary 2: Korematsu v. United States (1944)
During World War II, the United States government feared that Japan might attack the West Coast or receive assistance from people living within the country. In response, the federal government ordered the removal and relocation of more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry, many of whom were American citizens, to internment camps. Fred Korematsu refused to comply with the order to leave his home in California. He was arrested and convicted for violating the military order and challenged the government’s actions in court.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices were asked to determine whether the government’s wartime actions violated the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans. The Court recognized that the policy targeted a specific group based on ancestry, but concluded that the government had acted out of what it believed were urgent wartime military concerns. The justices ultimately accepted the government’s argument that protecting national security justified the relocation policy under the extraordinary circumstances of war.
Case Summary 3: Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
The city of New London, Connecticut, developed a plan to revitalize its struggling economy by encouraging new development near a recently built research facility. As part of the project, the city planned to acquire privately owned homes and transfer the land to private developers who would build offices, housing, and other facilities intended to bring jobs and economic growth to the area. Susette Kelo and several other homeowners refused to sell their properties, arguing that the government had no right to take their homes simply to give the land to another private party.
The dispute raised questions about the government’s power of eminent domain, which allows the government to take private property for “public use” as long as the owners receive compensation. The Supreme Court considered whether economic development qualified as a public use under the Constitution. The Court concluded that local governments may take private property as part of a broader plan intended to benefit the public through economic development, even if the property is ultimately transferred to another private owner.
Case Summary 4: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
For many years, Washington, D.C., had some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. The city banned most private handgun ownership and required firearms kept in homes to be unloaded and secured with trigger locks, making them difficult to use quickly. Dick Heller, a special police officer who was allowed to carry a handgun while working, applied for permission to keep a handgun in his home for personal protection. When the District of Columbia denied his application, he challenged the law in court.
The Supreme Court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The justices considered whether this amendment protected only the states' ability to maintain militias or also protected an individual right to possess firearms. The Court ultimately determined that the amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, while also acknowledging that governments may still regulate firearms in certain ways.