| Revision as of 17:43, 17 January 2006 editPostdlf (talk | contribs)Administrators91,177 edits fleshed out background somewhat from the court's decision← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:00, 17 January 2006 edit undoPostdlf (talk | contribs)Administrators91,177 edits clarifying the ruling, properly formatting "trivia" section as notesNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | valign="top"| <small>Full case name: | | valign="top"| <small>Full case name: | ||
| | valign="top"|<small>''Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., v. Oregon et al. | | valign="top"|<small>''Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., v. Oregon et al.{{ref|case_name}} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | valign="top"| <small>Citations: | | valign="top"| <small>Citations: | ||
| Line 37: | Line 36: | ||
| | '''Chief Justice''' John Roberts, Jr. | | '''Chief Justice''' John Roberts, Jr. | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | '''Associate Justices''' John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer | | '''Associate Justices''' John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor,{{ref|retirement}} Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 60: | Line 59: | ||
| | Ore. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 ''et seq.'' (2003) (Oregon Death With Dignity Act); 21 U.S.C. § 801 ''et seq.'' (Controlled Substances Act); 66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001) | | Ore. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 ''et seq.'' (2003) (Oregon Death With Dignity Act); 21 U.S.C. § 801 ''et seq.'' (Controlled Substances Act); 66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001) | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| '''''Gonzales v. Oregon''''' |
'''''Gonzales v. Oregon''''' (docket #:04-623) (]){{ref|citation}}, is a case in which the ] ruled that the ] could not enforce the ] against physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an ] law. It was the first case heard under the leadership of Chief Justice ]. | ||
| ==Background of the case== | ==Background of the case== | ||
| In ], voters in the State of Oregon approved ] by a margin of 31,962 votes and retained this measure by 220,445 votes in ] ] attempt to repeal the law. The law permits physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient agreed by two doctors to be within six months of dying from an incurable condition. As of ], 208 individuals had ended their lives under the law. | In ], voters in the State of Oregon approved ] by a margin of 31,962 votes and retained this measure by 220,445 votes in ] ] attempt to repeal the law. The law permits physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient agreed by two doctors to be within six months of dying from an incurable condition. As of ], 208 individuals had ended their lives under the law. | ||
| On November 9, 2001, ] ] issued an Interpretive Rule that assisted-physician suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, and that any physician administering federally controlled drugs for that purpose would be in violation of the ]. The State of Oregon, joined by a physician, a pharmacist, and some terminally ill patients, all from Oregon, filed a challenge to the Attorney General's rule in the ]. The court ruled for Oregon and issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Interpretive Rule. This was affirmed by the ]. | On November 9, 2001, ] ] issued an Interpretive Rule that assisted-physician suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, and that any physician administering federally controlled drugs for that purpose would be in violation of the ]. The State of Oregon, joined by a physician, a pharmacist, and some terminally ill patients, all from Oregon, filed a challenge to the Attorney General's rule in the ].{{ref|case name}} The court ruled for Oregon and issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Interpretive Rule. This was affirmed by the ]. | ||
| ==The Court's decision== | ==The Court's decision== | ||
| In a 6-3 decision by Justice ], the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and rebuked the Attorney General for assuming that the Controlled Substances Act gave him "the authority and the expertise" to challenge it. | In a 6-3 decision written by Justice ],{{ref|retirement}} the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and rebuked the Attorney General for assuming that the Controlled Substances Act gave him "the authority and the expertise" to challenge it. | ||
| ===Scalia's dissent=== | ===Scalia's dissent=== | ||
| Justice ] dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice ]. Scalia, arguing for the power of the federal government to over-ride the will of the states or the people therein, wrote that "f the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death". | Justice ] dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice ]. Scalia, arguing for the power of the federal government to over-ride the will of the states or the people therein, wrote that "f the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death". | ||
| == |
==Notes== | ||
| ⚫ | *{{note|citation}} | ||
| Retiring Justice ] was on the Court for arguments in this case, and her vote would not have counted if a successor was confirmed before the Court rendered a decision. However, the decision was rendered while the confirmation hearings for ], who has been nominated to replace O'Connor, were ongoing. This had no effect on the outcome, as the majority would still have had five votes without O'Connor. | |||
| ⚫ | *{{note|case name}}The case was initially filed as ''Oregon v. Oregon'', with ], then Attorney General, as a nominal defendant by virtue of his status as the head of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. ] was substituted for Ashcroft following his appointment of ] to that position, Gonzales was substituted., for the officeholder responsible for the prosecution at the time the case was filed. Ashcroft himself had brought the case on the day that his retirement was announced. | ||
| *{{note|retirement}}Justice ] was in the majority, though she had announced her retirement on July 1, 2005, pending confirmation of a successor. She remained on the Court when oral argument was heard and when the case was considered, though her vote would not have counted if her successor was seated before the Court formally announced its decision. ] was still pending confirmation by the Senate to replace O'Connor when the ruling was handed down. | |||
| ⚫ | The case |
||
| ==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| ⚫ | *{{note|citation}} | ||
| *, '']'', January 17, 2006. | *, '']'', January 17, 2006. | ||
| * | * | ||
Revision as of 18:00, 17 January 2006
 | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Gonzales v. Oregon | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| File:SCOTUS seal.jpg Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued October 5, 2005 Decided January 17, 2006 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| The U.S. Attorney General does not have the authority under the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide permitted by state law. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| Ore. Rev. Stat. § 127.800 et seq. (2003) (Oregon Death With Dignity Act); 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (Controlled Substances Act); 66 Fed. Reg. 56608 (2001) |
Gonzales v. Oregon (docket #:04-623) (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the Controlled Substances Act against physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law. It was the first case heard under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr..
Background of the case
In 1994, voters in the State of Oregon approved Oregon Ballot Measure 16 by a margin of 31,962 votes and retained this measure by 220,445 votes in a 1997 special election attempt to repeal the law. The law permits physicians to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a patient agreed by two doctors to be within six months of dying from an incurable condition. As of 2004, 208 individuals had ended their lives under the law.
On November 9, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued an Interpretive Rule that assisted-physician suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, and that any physician administering federally controlled drugs for that purpose would be in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. The State of Oregon, joined by a physician, a pharmacist, and some terminally ill patients, all from Oregon, filed a challenge to the Attorney General's rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The court ruled for Oregon and issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Interpretive Rule. This was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Court's decision
In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and rebuked the Attorney General for assuming that the Controlled Substances Act gave him "the authority and the expertise" to challenge it.
Scalia's dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. Scalia, arguing for the power of the federal government to over-ride the will of the states or the people therein, wrote that "f the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death".
Notes
- Full text of the Supreme Court's decision
- The case was initially filed as Oregon v. Oregon, with John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, as a nominal defendant by virtue of his status as the head of the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Alberto Gonzales was substituted for Ashcroft following his appointment of Alberto Gonzales to that position, Gonzales was substituted., for the officeholder responsible for the prosecution at the time the case was filed. Ashcroft himself had brought the case on the day that his retirement was announced.
- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was in the majority, though she had announced her retirement on July 1, 2005, pending confirmation of a successor. She remained on the Court when oral argument was heard and when the case was considered, though her vote would not have counted if her successor was seated before the Court formally announced its decision. Samuel Alito was still pending confirmation by the Senate to replace O'Connor when the ruling was handed down.
External links
- Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law, Washington Post, January 17, 2006.
- Legal analysis of the case