Can the Federal government of the United States force all U.S. states to pass a mandatory vaccination mandate?
<p>Can the Federal government of the United States force all U.S. states to pass a mandatory vaccination mandate? Or do the states have the ability to decide whatever they want to do regardless of what the Federal government wants them to do?</p>

<p>Whether or not the federal government can pass its own law mandating vaccination is a separate question. The answer to the question “can the Federal government of the United States force all U.S. states to pass a mandatory vaccination mandate?” is a straightforward “No.” Such action by the federal government is contrary to the Anti-Coercion Doctrine. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">South Dakota v. Dole</a>, 483 U.S. 203, the issue was a federal law, the National Drinking Age law, which withheld 5% of federal funds (initially, 10% every year thereafter) from a state that did not have a minimum drinking age of at least 21. The Supreme Court court upheld the law not because Congress has the power to withhold federal funds in order to get what they demand from a state but because the 5% loss of funds</p>
<blockquote>
<p>is not so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into
compulsion</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, pressure is legal, compulsion is not. The court did not set a dollar amount that distinguishes impermissible coercion from permissible financial incentive, but we can presume that 10% loss of related federal funds would be tolerated. In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NFIB v. Sebelius</a>, SCOTUS overturned a law that allowed Medicaid funds to be entirely taken away if a state did not change its laws with respect to Medicaid in a specific way. The court held that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall  budget
is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real
option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion...
The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening
States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they
decline to comply with the expansion</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a possible law that Congress could pass that would give states an incentive to pass a law about vaccination, but Congress cannot force states to pass any law.</p>

<h2>The Federal government can only legislate and regulate within the powers granted to it by the Constitution</h2>
<p>So, that means they can't &quot;force&quot; a state government to do anything.</p>
<h2>Power</h2>
<p>However, they can pass Federal laws and, if they are within the power of the Federal government, they override state law to the extent of any inconsistency.</p>
<p>The Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce: a law mandating that any business engaged in interstate commerce (so, most banks, insurance companies, logistic companies, software companies, large retailers, large agribusinesses etc.) could only deal with customers (consumer or business) who had a &quot;vaccine passport&quot; is squarely within the power of the US government and, if carefully drafted, would be Constitutional. The knock-on effect is that this would affect all businesses - it's hard to run a business without a bank account.</p>
<p>The interstate commerce power has greatly increased the reach of the Federal government in parallel with the massive growth in interstate commerce since the second world war and, more recently with the rise of the internet. Businesses that once would have been purely local are now online and therefore are engaged in interstate commerce.</p>
<p>They also have the power to levy and collect taxes: a $10,000 pa tax on the unvaccinated (without medical exemption) is certainly Constitutional even if it's not politically palatable.</p>
<h2>Influence</h2>
<p>Of course, while the Federal government can't force a state to pass or repeal a law and may not have a head of power to allow them to intervene directly (or be politically unwilling to do so) the Federal government wields considerable influence.</p>
<p>For example, have you ever wondered why every single state, who normally couldn't agree that the sky was blue, has the same <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state" rel="noreferrer">minimum drinking age</a> of 21? They didn't used to and the Federal government has never &quot;forced&quot; them to. However, the 1984 <a href="https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/the-1984-national-minimum-drinking-age-act" rel="noreferrer">Minimum Drinking Age Act</a> said to the states &quot;You can set any minimum drinking age you like. However, if it's under 21 you are ineligible for Federal road funding.&quot; Every single state &quot;voluntarily&quot; decided they liked Federal money more than they liked their independence on this matter.</p>

united-states