1. By Andrew Stivers GONZALEZ V. OREGON

2. You decide: Prelude to Gonzalez V. Oregon A 107 year old woman, who is a resident of Portland, Oregon, has three months to live as a result of lung cancer, to a point in which she no longer recover, no longer wants to suffer and simply wishes to die. She approaches a doctor in town and after the approval by another, she is allowed to intake medication that will kill her. She is allowed to do so under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. However, the Attorney General deems this not a legitimate medical purpose, and presses to have the act removed. Should it stand? You decide.

3. Overview of Gonzalez V. Oregon The Oregon Death with Dignity Act states that a person has the right to legal physician assisted suicide, as subscribe by a physician, approved by two doctors. The person must be within six months of dying from an incurable condition. This was put in place in 1997. In 2001, Attorney general John Ashcroft issued an Interpretive Rule that physician assisted suicide was not a legitimate medical purpose, and any physician using said drugs would be in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. federal district court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Following this, a group consisting of a physician, a pharmacist, and a group of terminally ill patients and the State of Oregon went to the Oregon federal district court. The court ruled for Oregon and issued a permanent injunction against Interpretive Rule enforcement. This was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

4. The Court’s Decision 6-3 in favor of the state of Oregon. The majority opinion of the court did not disagree with the regulation of drugs, but did with the statute in place empowered the Attorney General to overrule state laws determining what constituted the proper use of drugs and medications that were not prohibited. The court found it was inappropriate to apply Chevron deference toward the Attorney General’s Interpretive Rule, which said that controlled substances could not medically be used for the purpose of physician-assisted suicide.

5. Dissent Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts- Argued that under the Supreme Court precedent deference was due to the attorney General’s interpretation of the statute. He stated that, “If the term “legitimate medical purpose” has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death”. inconsistent with Gonzales V. Raich Justice Thomas- Ruling was inconsistent with Gonzales V. Raich. 5/6 judges who were the majority in the decision in the Oregon case found broad federal authority under the Controlled Substances Act for Congress to forbid the growth of medical marijuana. He argued for more limited congressional power under the commerce clause in Raich, which was an inter vs. intra state issue. This case was the validity of an executive interpretation of the statute. He argued that the federalism concerns in the Raich case seemed to flip for the Oregon case. They were also the basis.

6. Interpretation of Constructionism Strict ConstructionismJudicial Restraint Strict Constructionism and Judicial Restraint- It was a power reserved for the state, where the constitution states that in Amendment X that powers not held by the federal government can be held by the states, giving the states rights.

7. Reasoning public opinion This decision was upholding the Constitution’s power granted to the states, while also staying in favor of public opinion, as this Act had passed in the state several times, showing that the people wanted it.