Worth a Shot: A Constitutional Investigation of Federal Vaccine Legislation

Abstract

Maintaining appropriate vaccination levels is essential for the protection and wellbeing of any country. In the United States, the system is complicated by the state-federal power dynamic and historic political trends. At the moment, mandatory vaccination is handled by the states and only legislated in regard to children. Laws and mandates vary wildly by state in terms of which vaccines are mandated and what types of exemptions are allowed. While the system has never produced perfect results, in recent years, vaccination rates have fallen more rapidly than before, mainly due to increased vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. There has been some effort in the past to adopt a more nationalized, federal approach to address some of these concerns, yet these efforts have failed through normal political channels numerous times. However, with the past year dominated by the COVID-19 crisis, the views and comfortability of federal public health legislation have shifted immensely. As COVID-19 vaccines are distributed by the federal government, new debates and conversations surrounding vaccination have surfaced. With this in mind, a more nationalized approach to vaccination may now be possible. This thesis looks to establish a long-term legal framework for possible congressional action in regard to vaccination given the current political and legal landscape. Through a careful historical and constitutional investigation, this thesis develops the background of the federal public health system to discuss the current status quo and related issues. Finally, it investigates the constitutional background and related problems of a possible direct mandate. It then argues a conditional spending bill is the best option for the success of a federal mandate.