Gonzales v. Oregon Public Information Kit

Oct. 18, 2005

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gonzales v. Oregon on October 5, 2005 and is expected to hand down a ruling on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act by June 2006.

Read the transcript of oral arguments

Resource Links

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Spokespeople Bios
• Oregon Law Timeline
• Oregon Law Language
• Oregon Law Safeguards
• Oregon Law Backgrounder
• DDNC Organizational Backgrounder
• Oregon Dept. of Health and Humans Services FAQs on the Law
• Oregon Dept. of Health and Human Services 2005 Report on the Law
• Supreme Court Decision-Making Protocol
  

Legal Facts at a Glance

The question in Gonzales v. Oregon:

"Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize such distribution."

The U.S. Justice Department's main arguments:

1 The Controlled Substances Act establishes a comprehensive and uniform nation system for regulating controlled substances, and the Attorney General's interpretive ruling implementing the Act is supported by the overwhelming weight of authority.

2 The [Ninth Circuit] court of appeal's rejection of the Attorney General's interpretive ruling was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable principals of statutory construction.

• Justice Department Brief

The State of Oregon's main arguments:

1 The Attorney General's threatened action would nullify the DWDA.

2 The CSA does not itself prohibit the uses of controlled substances permitted by the DWDA, and it does not authorize the U.S. Attorney General to do so.

3 The Court should reject this unprecedented attempt by an agency official to resolve a disputed issue of social and medical policy that is reserved to the States and should reemphasize the vital role State sovereignty plays in our federal system and the need for Congress to speak clearly when it intends to interfere with that role.

• State of Oregon Brief

The main arguments of DDNC board member Eli Stutsman, representing the physician and pharmacist in the case:

1 The Attorney General's enforcement directive violates the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act, oversteps the bounds of the Attorney General's statutory authority, and contravenes Congress' express legislative intent.

2 The States, not the Attorney General acting through the Controlled Substances Act, regulate medicine.

3 The power to regulate commerce between the States does not authorize federal usurpation of medical practice in the States, or the manner in which Oregonians die.

• Stutsman/DDNC Brief

Additional Friend-of-Court Briefs

• The Cato Insitute
• Oregon Democratic Congressional Delegation
• American Center for Law and Justice
• American Civil Liberties Union
  

Information

Contact: Robert C. Kenneth by e-mail, or call (503) 228-4415.

For the Supreme Court's complete calendar, click here.

Death with Dignity National Center, 520 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1030, Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 228-4415 / Fax: (503) 228-7454

Email this page to a friend Share on Facebook Share on StumbleUpon Print this page