Zucht v. King - 260 U.S. 174, 43 S. Ct. 24 (1922)

Rule:

A city ordinance is a law of the state within the meaning of U.S. Jud. Code § 237, as amended, which provides a review by writ of error where the validity of a law is sustained by the highest court of the state in which a decision in the suit could be had. But, although the validity of a law is formally drawn in question, it is the United States Supreme Court's duty to decline jurisdiction whenever it appears that the constitutional question presented is not, and was not at the time of granting the writ, substantial in character. It is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination. It is also settled that a state may, consistently with the Federal Constitution, delegate to a municipality authority to determine under what conditions health regulations shall become operative. The municipality may vest in its officials broad discretion in matters affecting the application and enforcement of a health law. A long line of decisions by the Court has also settled that in the exercise of the police power reasonable classification may be freely applied and that regulation is not violative of the equal protection clause merely because it is not all-embracing.

Facts:

Pursuant to Ordinances of the City of San Antonio, Texas, the officials excluded Rosalyn Zucht from a public school because she did not have the required certificate and refused to submit to vaccination. They also caused her to be excluded from a private school. Zucht then brought this suit against the officials in a state court, claiming that the ordinances deprived her of her liberty without due process of law by making vaccination compulsory and by leaving enforcement to the Board of Health's discretion with out sufficient guidance. She sought an injunction against enforcing the ordinances, a writ of mandamus to compel her admission to the public school, and damages. The trial court sustained the officials' demurrer and dismissed the bill. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, and ultimately the case came before the United States Supreme Court on writ of error. It was assigned as error that the ordinances violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment; and that as administered, they denied to Zucht equal protection of the laws.

Issue:

Could the writ of error be sustained on the basis of the constitutional questions raised by Zucht?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court noted that a city ordinance was a law of the State within the meaning of § 237 of the Judicial Code as amended, which provided a review by writ of error where the validity of a law was sustained by the highest court of the State in which a decision in the suit could be had. However, although the validity of a law was formally drawn in question, it was the Court’s duty to decline jurisdiction where it appeared that the constitutional question presented was not, at the time of granting the writ, substantial in character. In view of the decision held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, where the Court held that it was within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination, the Court dismissed the writ of error, finding in the record no question as to the validity of the ordinances. The ordinances conferred not arbitrary power to the administering officials, but only the broad discretion required for the protection of the public health.