May 26, 2004

(Updated) Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law Scores Legal Victory

Court Rules Attorney General Ashcroft Exceeded His Authority

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

It came across via a short breaking news report from the Associated Press just as we were headed out the door this morning. And as the fuller AP article reports, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Attorney General Ashcroft in his attempt to shut down Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law:

Ruling on the nation's only law that allows doctors to assist in hastening the death of a patient, the court said U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot sanction or hold Oregon doctors criminally liable for prescribing overdoses, as the state's voter-approved Death With Dignity Act allows.

"The attorney general's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician assisted suicide," wrote Judge Richard Tallman in the 2-1 opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said Ashcroft's action "far exceeds the scope of his authority under federal law."

This AP report only gets it partially correct when it says that the dissenting judge should give "substantial deference" to the Attorney General's determinations. Without, for the moment, going into depth on the ruling itself (pdf), we can find the basics in the accompanying press release with came with the ruling. It indicates that in his dissent, Judge Wallace turned to "substantial deference" because the so-called Ashcroft Directive "interprets and agency regulation ... rather than the Controlled Substances Act itself."

But turning to the two-judge majority, the press release reports that "the panel held that the Ashcroft Directive is unlawful and unenforceable" for these reasons (taken verbtain from the press release):

• The Ashcroft Directive lacks clear congressional authority. The Attorney General may not exercise control over an area of law traditionally reserved for state authority, such as regulation of medical care, unless Congress' authorization is "unmistakabkly clear." Congress has provided no indication that it intended to authorize the Attorney General to regulate the practice of physician assisted suicide.
• The Ashcroft Directive violates the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act. The Controlled Substances Act expressly limits federal authority under the Act to the field of drug abuse and prevention, and Congress so intended to limit federal authroty. The Ashcroft Directive purports to regulat medical practices outside the field of drug abuse and prevention.
• The Ashcroft Directive oversteps the bounds of the Attorney General's statutory authority. Congress intended to limit the Controlled Substances Act to problems associated with drug abuse and addiction. To the limited extent that the Controlled Substances Act authorizes the federal government to make decisions regarding the practice of medicine, Congress empowered the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not the Attorney General, to make those decisions.

Of course, you can see how those reasons leave open the door for other action against the Oregon law, either by Congressional legislation or even perhaps directives from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Associated Press also has some reactions from Oregon officials and others, and there is a brief OPB News item as well.

There is also, of course, a Death with Dignity press release, in which its exectuve director reminds us of the following: "The people of Oregon spoke twice.  Congress failed to overturn the law twice and now federal courts have spoken three times -- just how much tax money will John Ashcroft and this administration spend trying to undermine the will of the people and the democratic process?"

For historical context, readers may be interested in our coverage of oral arguments in the case, which occurred here in Portland just slightly over one year ago (see also some post-hearing coverage and some reflections on the Federal arguments in the case).

Posted at 02:22 PM | PermalinkComments (3) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, State of Oregon

« Previous Next »