Gonzalez v. OregonGonzalez v. Oregon

Logan Oyler, Chris Logan Oyler, Chris Cubra, Jake Macnair, Cubra, Jake Macnair, Vikash Patel, Vikash Patel,

Tyler StallworthTyler Stallworth

You Decide…You Decide… Your Grandma Shirley is in the last short Your Grandma Shirley is in the last short

months of her life. She is mentally clear and months of her life. She is mentally clear and has requested assisted suicide by has requested assisted suicide by prescription drugs from a licensed physician. prescription drugs from a licensed physician. You live in Kentucky, where assisted suicide You live in Kentucky, where assisted suicide is legal in Kentucky, however, family member is legal in Kentucky, however, family member permission is also required. What do you permission is also required. What do you decide is right, keeping in mind that the decide is right, keeping in mind that the federal law is against Death with Dignity?federal law is against Death with Dignity?

BackgroundBackground Argued: Argued: October 5, 2005October 5, 2005 Decided: Decided: January 17, 2006January 17, 2006 In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity

Act; this law authorized physicians to prescribe Act; this law authorized physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients as a form of assisted terminally ill patients as a form of assisted suicidesuicide

In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft said In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that this law, enabling physician-assisted that this law, enabling physician-assisted suicide, violated the Controlled Substance Act of suicide, violated the Controlled Substance Act of 19701970

In 2005, the new Attorney General Alberto In 2005, the new Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez took the case to the SupremeGonzalez took the case to the Supreme Court Court

Constitutional QuestionConstitutional Question

• Does the federal Controlled Does the federal Controlled Substance Act preempt the Oregon Substance Act preempt the Oregon state law about assisted suicide?state law about assisted suicide?

• Does the state have the power to Does the state have the power to decide assisted suicide is ok rather decide assisted suicide is ok rather than the federal government?than the federal government?

Court Decision and Vote Court Decision and Vote BreakdownBreakdown

The supreme court ruled in favor of The supreme court ruled in favor of Oregon.Oregon.

The votes were 6-3 in favor of Oregon.The votes were 6-3 in favor of Oregon.Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter,

Ginsburg, and Breyer voted in favor or Ginsburg, and Breyer voted in favor or Oregon.Oregon.

Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts voted Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts voted against Oregon.against Oregon.

Arguments in favor of OregonArguments in favor of Oregon

The majority opinion did not dispute the The majority opinion did not dispute the power of the federal government to power of the federal government to regulate drugs, but disagreed that the regulate drugs, but disagreed that the statute in place empowered the U.S. statute in place empowered the U.S. Attorney General to overrule state laws Attorney General to overrule state laws determining what constituted the determining what constituted the appropriate use of medications that were appropriate use of medications that were not themselves prohibited.not themselves prohibited.

Arguments against OregonArguments against Oregon Justice Scalia said that under the Supreme Justice Scalia said that under the Supreme

Court precedent deference was due to the Court precedent deference was due to the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute. Attorney General's interpretation of the statute. He wrote that "[i]f the term 'legitimate medical He wrote that "[i]f the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death".the prescription of drugs to produce death".

Justice Thomas agreed with Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas agreed with Justice Scalia and also filed a brief dissent in which he argued also filed a brief dissent in which he argued that the court's majority opinion was that the court's majority opinion was inconsistent with the reasoning in inconsistent with the reasoning in Gonzales v. Gonzales v. RaichRaich..

Constructionalism Constructionalism Strict Constructionalism: Strict Constructionalism: the ruling gave the ruling gave

power to the states over the federal power to the states over the federal government to allow or not allow Death with government to allow or not allow Death with Dignity. Strict due to 10Dignity. Strict due to 10 thth amendment amendment Reserved powers laid out in 10Reserved powers laid out in 10thth amendment gives amendment gives

powers not explicitly given to the federal government to powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the statethe state

Judicial Activism: Judicial Activism: The ruling went against The ruling went against federal law and U.S. Attorney General to federal law and U.S. Attorney General to give power to the states give power to the states

Influences on the DecisionInfluences on the Decision

The judges personal views on physician-The judges personal views on physician-assisted suicide despite the case being about assisted suicide despite the case being about federalism and preemptionfederalism and preemption

This case is touchy subject so the public’s This case is touchy subject so the public’s opinion probably had some sort of influence on opinion probably had some sort of influence on the court’s decisionthe court’s decision

In other similar cases the Roman Catholic In other similar cases the Roman Catholic church has spoken out against euthanasia church has spoken out against euthanasia

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stands American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stands up for the rights of the individual; possibly could up for the rights of the individual; possibly could have affected the judgeshave affected the judges