Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffappealnonprofitdue process
attorneydue processrespondent

Related Cases

Copithorne v. Framingham Union Hosp., 401 Mass. 860, 520 N.E.2d 139, 56 USLW 2565
View Case »
Bernard v. Char, 79 Hawai’i 371, 903 P.2d 676
View Case »
Mozingo by Thomas v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., Inc., 331 N.C. 182, 415 S.E.2d 341
View Case »
Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93
View Case »
Parris v. Limes, 277 P.3d 1259, 2012 OK 18
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772, 65 USLW 4669, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5008, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8150, 97 CJ C.A.R. 1067, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 190

Facts

Three terminally ill patients, four physicians, and a nonprofit organization filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington, claiming that the state's ban on assisted suicide violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that they had a liberty interest in choosing to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to a Supreme Court review.

Petitioners in this case are the State of Washington and its Attorney General. Respondents Harold Glucksberg, M. D., Abigail Halperin, M. D., Thomas A. Preston, M. D., and Peter Shalit, M. D., are physicians who practice in Washington.

Issue

Whether Washington's prohibition against 'caus[ing]' or 'aid[ing]' a suicide offends the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Whether Washington's prohibition against 'caus[ing]' or 'aid[ing]' a suicide offends the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Rule

The Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights and liberties that are deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition, and any infringement on such rights must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the 'liberty' it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint.

Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the historical context of assisted suicide laws and concluded that the asserted right to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court emphasized that the prohibition against assisting suicide has been a longstanding legal tradition in the United States, and that the state's interests in preserving life and preventing suicide were legitimate and rationally related to the ban.

In light of that history, this Court's decisions lead to the conclusion that respondents' asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that Washington's prohibition against assisted suicide does not violate the Due Process Clause.

Held: Washington's prohibition against 'caus[ing]' or 'aid[ing]' a suicide does not violate the Due Process Clause.

Who won?

The State of Washington prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on assisted suicide, finding it to be rationally related to legitimate government interests.

The State's assisted-suicide ban was rationally related to legitimate government interests, see, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319–320, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 2642–2643, 125 L.Ed.2d 257, is unquestionably met here.

You must be