Oregon, U.S. battle over authority on assisted suicide
- Oct 14, 2005 - comment
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Oct. 5 about whether the authority of the federal government or a state should prevail in the matter of physician-assisted suicide.
Lawyers for Oregon and the United States squared off before the high court, with the state arguing its legalization of the practice is covered by its right to regulate medicine and the federal government contending its control of drugs trumps such authority.
New Chief Justice John Roberts presided over the contentious case on only the second day of oral arguments in the high court’s new term.
Assisted suicide, which involves a physician prescribing but not administering a drug to take a person’s life, became legal in Oregon in 1997. Oregon remains the only state to legalize the act. Through 2004, Oregon had reported 208 deaths by assisted suicide.
The question the justices are considering in Gonzales v. Oregon is not whether assisted suicide is legal but whether the Department of Justice acted within its authority when it banned the use of federally controlled drugs in such lethal actions.
Oregon won the initial two rounds in the case, first gaining a federal judge’s injunction blocking enforcement of a 2001 order by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft barring the use of drugs regulated by the Controlled Substances Act in doctor-assisted suicides. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold the block on Ashcroft’s directive.
During the arguments, Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor appeared to be the most skeptical of the federal government’s position, while Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia questioned the assertions of the state the most.
Patrick Trueman, senior legal counsel for Family Research Council, told reporters he is “very concerned about the potential outcome. This closely divided court has a few justices, particularly Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, who seem to be looking for a way to legalize or constitutionalize” physician-assisted suicide
“I think it’s a close case,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. “I suspect right now the way it’s going to line up it would probably be 4 to 4. . . . I don’t think Justice O’Connor will be sitting when the case’s opinion is actually rendered. If that’s the case, it is likely that the case will be set for re-argument . . .”
O’Connor announced her retirement July 1 but said she would remain on the court until her replacement was confirmed by the Senate. If an opinion in the case is not announced before O’Connor leaves the court, her vote will not count. If there are new oral arguments as a result, President Bush’s latest nominee, Harriet Miers, or another confirmed nominee would sit in.
Under such a scenario, Miers “could be the swing vote,” Sekulow said.