Oh, so you are saying the courts making these rulings were before our present Supreme Court justices were sitting. Right now, if I understand correctly, there are justices who were put in by Donald Trump, giving a conservative majority. But these did not make the rulings mandating vaccinations. I am curious how they might rule, if not effected by previous rulings. Would they tend to think like Donald who seems to have not been in favor of masks and vaccines . . . not much, anyway? But they can think for themselves, so they might feel more strongly for or against vaccines.
I personally think it can be constitutional to mandate vaccinations. But, of course, it needs to be proven well that the vaccines can be helpful. Ones might say, what about individual choice and rights? But already we have various things which are law for the overall social good, and individuals do not have their own choice, except with limits.
speed limits
taxes
And I think of what I think is called "eminent domain" . . . meaning how an individual's property may be taken for the greater good of people, for example taking a house so a superhighway can be built through an area. Like this, I think it can be ruled for the greater good, that certain health regulations and requirements may override individual rights.
But right now may be the vaccines have not been officially and legally approved by the FDA. And so, maybe "of course", it would not be legal to require the general public to use what has not been officially approved by the FDA.