Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., a Wyoming Not-for-Profit Corporation, et al. v. Alberto Carvalho, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Los Angeles United School District, et al.
1. Does this Court's opinion in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), limit a court's review of government mandated medical treatments to the highly deferential rational basis review or does Jacobson require heightened scrutiny based on a balancing test, as the Court held in Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)?
2. If, as the Ninth Circuit held, Jacobson limits courts to rational basis review, should it be overruled or limited to its specific facts because it is inconsistent with modern constitutional scrutiny, including this Court's opinions in Cruzan and Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), which explicitly recognized a person's fundamental interest in rejecting unwanted medical treatments?
Does Jacobson v. Massachusetts limit judicial review of government-mandated medical treatments to rational basis review or require heightened scrutiny under a balancing test?