Legal Aspects of Excluding Unvaccinated Individuals from Organizations and Gatherings

The debate over whether it is legal to exclude someone from an organization or gathering based on their vaccination status is complex and multifaceted. This article aims to clarify the legal framework governing this issue, examining both state and federal laws.

State Laws and Bans

It is crucial to understand that the legality of excluding unvaccinated individuals from organizations and gatherings varies significantly by state. A notable trend is the divide among state governors, with some Republican governors striving to relax restrictions on businesses while others are issuing bans on vaccine mandates. As previously mentioned, in those states deemed more "sane," vaccine requirements are not only allowed but are often encouraged.

Private vs. Public Entities

For private entities, the exclusion of unvaccinated individuals is generally regarded as their right. A voluntary organization is, by definition, voluntary, and no one has a legally enforceable right to join another group against their will or attend their events. However, there are scenarios where private organizations may face consequences for discriminatory practices.

For instance, a club that refuses to admit certain groups based on sex, race, or national origin might face legal repercussions, such as the revocation of a liquor license. Conversely, vaccination status carries no such protective status.

Public Entities and State Police Power

Public entities, such as state governments, possess broader powers to legislate in the interest of public health and safety. The U.S. Constitution grants this power through the Tenth Amendment, known as the Police Power.

The U.S. Supreme Court established the principle of the Police Power in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). In this landmark decision, the Court ruled that states can fine individuals for refusing to be vaccinated. The implications of this decision suggest that a refusal to be vaccinated could potentially lead to confinement, arrest, quarantine, or imprisonment, although such actions would require a balance between state police power and individual constitutional rights.

The case of Zucht v. King (1922) further supports this notion. In this case, the Court upheld city ordinances requiring vaccination for students attending public and private schools. Justice Louis Brandeis emphasized that the issue had been settled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

Federal Actions and Limits

While the Federal government lacks the outright authority to mandate vaccinations, it has several tools at its disposal to impose requirements in certain contexts:

Government Employees: The government can set employment requirements, including vaccinations, for federal employees. While service members are required to be vaccinated and cannot practically refuse, this does not extend to all employed individuals who can opt out voluntarily. Public Health Service Act: Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act enables the Health and Human Services Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to implement measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Occupational Safety and Health Act: OSHA mandates various safety measures in workplaces and can impose requirements for healthcare workers to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Emergency Temporary Standard: OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard in June, which required healthcare workers to take measures to suppress the transmission of diseases. Employment of 100 Employees: The U.S. is considering a workplace rule requiring weekly testing for companies with 100 or more employees, with a waiver for fully vaccinated individuals.

In conclusion, the legality of excluding unvaccinated individuals from organizations and gatherings depends on the specific circumstances and applicable laws. While private entities have broadly recognized rights to make such decisions, public entities must adhere to the principles of the Police Power and the Constitution.