No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law. Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the power of a state or municipality to implement and

No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law. Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the power of a state or municipality to implement and enforce a vaccination mandate, which is exactly what I said in my original comment. The federal government of the US has not been given that power through Jacobson v. Massachusetts and if it was so clear cut a precedent the supreme court wouldn't even bother hearing the case that is currently underway. EDIT: Getting downvoted so here's the primary holding. Read it for yourself. > A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.