Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was about compulsory vaccinations. In that decision the court decided governments could have fairly wide latitude in ordering compulsory vaccination. This was cited as a reason for denying the gop motion for pritzker.
Right, I think the concern from people saying she would allow the state to compel a vaccine use her willingness to cite Jacobsen as the reason for the concern.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was about compulsory vaccinations. In that decision the court decided governments could have fairly wide latitude in ordering compulsory vaccination. This was cited as a reason for denying the gop motion for pritzker.
I meant the pritzker ruling was about the disparate treatment of groups under the lockdown. Citing Jacobsen was with regards to state power.
Right, I think the concern from people saying she would allow the state to compel a vaccine use her willingness to cite Jacobsen as the reason for the concern.
Gotcha