Zucht v. King
260 U.S. 174, 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2356, 43 S. Ct. 24 (1922)
Rule of Law:
A state, exercising its police power, may require compulsory vaccination for school attendance and delegate broad discretion to municipal health officials for enforcement, without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reviews challenges to the validity of a state law by writ of error only if the constitutional question is substantial, while challenges to the unconstitutional exercise of authority under a valid law are reviewable by writ of certiorari.
Facts:
- Ordinances of the City of San Antonio, Texas, required children and other persons to present a certificate of vaccination to attend public or other places of education.
- Rosalyn Zucht did not have the required vaccination certificate.
- Rosalyn Zucht refused to submit to vaccination.
- Public officials, acting under these ordinances, excluded Rosalyn Zucht from a public school.
- Public officials also caused Rosalyn Zucht to be excluded from a private school.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosalyn Zucht brought a lawsuit against public officials in a Texas state court, seeking an injunction, a writ of mandamus, and damages.
- The trial court sustained a general demurrer to Rosalyn Zucht's bill of complaint.
- Rosalyn Zucht declined to amend her bill, and the trial court dismissed the suit.
- Rosalyn Zucht appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth Supreme Judicial District, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Court of Civil Appeals overruled Rosalyn Zucht's motion for rehearing.
- The Supreme Court of Texas denied Rosalyn Zucht's application for a writ of error.
- Rosalyn Zucht filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 37.
- The Chief Justice of the Court of Civil Appeals granted a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction via writ of error to review a state court's decision upholding a municipal ordinance requiring vaccination, when the constitutional challenges relate to (1) the inherent validity of the ordinance under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, or (2) the discriminatory administration of the ordinance by officials?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brandeis
No, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction via writ of error to review Rosalyn Zucht's claims against the San Antonio officials because the challenge to the ordinance's fundamental validity is insubstantial, and the challenge to its discriminatory administration is not reviewable by writ of error. The Court recognized its jurisdiction under § 237 of the Judicial Code for reviewing challenges to the validity of a state law sustained by the highest state court, but emphasized that the constitutional question presented must be substantial. Precedent from Jacobson v. Massachusetts firmly established that states possess the police power to mandate compulsory vaccination. Other cases, such as Laurel Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco and Lieberman v. Van De Carr, further settled that states may consistently with the Federal Constitution delegate this authority to municipalities and vest broad discretion in health officials for the application and enforcement of such laws. Additionally, a line of decisions, including Adams v. Milwaukee and Miller v. Wilson, confirmed that reasonable classification in the exercise of police power does not violate equal protection merely because it is not all-embracing. Given these precedents, the Court found Rosalyn Zucht's challenge to the validity of the San Antonio vaccination ordinance itself under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to be unsubstantial, as the ordinance confers broad discretion for public health protection, not arbitrary power. While the averments of discriminatory administration by officials do present a substantial constitutional question, as recognized in Neal v. Delaware, such a claim pertains to an unconstitutional exercise of authority under a valid ordinance, rather than the ordinance's validity itself. Questions of this character are reviewable by the Supreme Court only on petition for a writ of certiorari, not a writ of error, unless the case is otherwise properly before the Court through that mechanism.
Analysis:
Zucht v. King reinforces the significant precedential value of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, affirming the broad scope of state police power in mandating public health measures like compulsory vaccination against Fourteenth Amendment challenges. Crucially, the case clarifies the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, distinguishing between claims challenging the inherent validity of a law (reviewable by writ of error if substantial) and claims challenging the unconstitutional application or administration of an otherwise valid law (generally reviewable only by writ of certiorari). This jurisdictional distinction is vital for litigants and attorneys, guiding the proper procedural avenue for bringing different types of constitutional claims before the Supreme Court and ensuring that appeals on settled constitutional issues are not automatically entertained via writ of error.
