2005 Supreme Court Debates

The Right to Die
Oregon’s Physician-Assisted Suicide Law
Does the Controlled Substances Act Prohibit Doctors From Prescribing Lethal Drugs to Dying Patients? (Excerpted from Supreme Court Debates, December 2005)

UPDATE on Jan. 17, 2006: Download the Ruling

In November 1994, 51 percent of Oregon voters approved the Death With Dignity Act by ballot initiative, making it the first State in the Nation to allow physicians to assist terminally ill patients in ending their own lives.

The Oregon law created a carefully regulated process for the prescription of life-ending drugs, such as barbiturates and morphine, to patients with less than six months to live. Under the law, a patient must be of sound mind, have made two requests for life-ending drugs separated by 15 days, have had his or her condition verified by a second physician, and have been informed of alternate options, such as pain medication and hospice care.

Opponents challenged the law in court, blocking its enactment until 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Washington v. Glucksberg that, while there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, States may enact laws permitting it. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in a concurring opinion, the decision of whether to allow physician-assisted suicide belongs “in the laboratory of the States.”

The Oregon Act operated without challenge for the next four years, until an opponent of physician-assisted suicide, John Ashcroft, became U.S. attorney general. After consulting with the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Ashcroft issued a directive in November 2001 that stated that any physician who sought to help patients end their lives by prescribing Schedule II medications under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — such as morphine and barbiturates — was in violation of Federal law and subject to suspension of his or her license to prescribe drugs and possible prosecution.

In April 2002, Oregon filed suit against Ashcroft, several other Federal officials, and the U.S. Government, challenging the directive.

On April 17, a Federal district court ruled in favor of Oregon. Ashcroft appealed to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which also struck down the directive on May 26, 2004. The United States appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on February 22, 2005.

During oral arguments on October 5, lawyers for the U.S. Government argued that the Controlled Substances Act gave the attorney general the power to grant physicians the right to prescribe drugs for a “legitimate medical purpose.”

Lawyers for Oregon countered that the CSA was primarily geared toward preventing drug abuse, and not the controlled administration of drugs, as permitted under State law.

Confirmation of a Chief Justice
Congress Challenges Law School Antidiscrimination Policies

Is the Solomon Amendment, Which Denies Federal Funds to Universities That Restrict Military Recruiters on Campus, Constitutional? (Excerpted From Supreme Court Debates, November 2005)

On September 6, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Appellate Judge John D. Roberts to become the seventeenth chief justice of the United States.

Shortly after his initial nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts received effusive praise from Republican senators and cautious compliments from many Democrats - and the tenor of this response did not change following his nomination to be chief justice.

Committee were held from September 12-15, and it was at this point that Democratic opposition to his nomination began to form. Senators Edward Kennedy (MA-D), Joseph Biden (DE-D), and Charles Schumer (NY-D) objected to the White House refusal to turn over documents pertaining to Roberts' service during the Bush and Reagan Administrations.

In addition, they expressed disappointment that Roberts declined to answer many specific questions about his views on controversial legal issues and recent Court cases. Without more information, they argued, it was difficult for senators to form an educated opinion as to Roberts' suitability for the Court. Democrats called attention When asked about his judicial philosophy, he compared himself to a baseball umpire - both judges and umpires "don't make the rules; they apply them."

Nevertheless, on September 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of John Roberts by a vote of 13 to 5. On September 29, 22 Democrats joined all the Republican senators and independent James Jeffords (VT) to confirm Roberts by a vote of 78 to 22.

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens administered the oath of office to Roberts hours after his confirmation. At the age of 50, Roberts is the youngest chief justice since John Marshall, who was named to the Court in 1801.