1. Gonzalez v. Oregon Logan Oyler, Chris Cubra, Jake Macnair, Vikash Patel, Tyler Stallworth Tyler Stallworth

2. You Decide… Your Grandma Shirley is in the last short months of her life. She is mentally clear and has requested assisted suicide by prescription drugs from a licensed physician. You live in Kentucky, where assisted suicide is legal in Kentucky, however, family member permission is also required. What do you decide is right, keeping in mind that the federal law is against Death with Dignity? Your Grandma Shirley is in the last short months of her life. She is mentally clear and has requested assisted suicide by prescription drugs from a licensed physician. You live in Kentucky, where assisted suicide is legal in Kentucky, however, family member permission is also required. What do you decide is right, keeping in mind that the federal law is against Death with Dignity?

3. Background Argued: October 5, 2005 Argued: October 5, 2005 Decided: January 17, 2006 Decided: January 17, 2006 In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act; this law authorized physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients as a form of assisted suicide In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act; this law authorized physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients as a form of assisted suicide In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that this law, enabling physician-assisted suicide, violated the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 In 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that this law, enabling physician-assisted suicide, violated the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 In 2005, the new Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez took the case to the Supreme Court In 2005, the new Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez took the case to the Supreme Court

4. Constitutional Question Does the federal Controlled Substance Act preempt the Oregon state law about assisted suicide? Does the federal Controlled Substance Act preempt the Oregon state law about assisted suicide? Does the state have the power to decide assisted suicide is ok rather than the federal government? Does the state have the power to decide assisted suicide is ok rather than the federal government?

5. Court Decision and Vote Breakdown The supreme court ruled in favor of Oregon. The supreme court ruled in favor of Oregon. The votes were 6-3 in favor of Oregon. The votes were 6-3 in favor of Oregon. Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted in favor or Oregon. Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted in favor or Oregon. Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts voted against Oregon. Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts voted against Oregon.

6. Arguments in favor of Oregon The majority opinion did not dispute the power of the federal government to regulate drugs, but disagreed that the statute in place empowered the U.S. Attorney General to overrule state laws determining what constituted the appropriate use of medications that were not themselves prohibited. The majority opinion did not dispute the power of the federal government to regulate drugs, but disagreed that the statute in place empowered the U.S. Attorney General to overrule state laws determining what constituted the appropriate use of medications that were not themselves prohibited.

7. Arguments against Oregon Justice Scalia said that under the Supreme Court precedent deference was due to the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute. He wrote that "[i]f the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death". Justice Scalia said that under the Supreme Court precedent deference was due to the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute. He wrote that "[i]f the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death". Justice Thomas agreed with Justice Scalia and also filed a brief dissent in which he argued that the court's majority opinion was inconsistent with the reasoning in Gonzales v. Raich. Justice Thomas agreed with Justice Scalia and also filed a brief dissent in which he argued that the court's majority opinion was inconsistent with the reasoning in Gonzales v. Raich.

8. Constructionalism Strict Constructionalism: the ruling gave power to the states over the federal government to allow or not allow Death with Dignity. Strict due to 10 th amendment Strict Constructionalism: the ruling gave power to the states over the federal government to allow or not allow Death with Dignity. Strict due to 10 th amendment Reserved powers laid out in 10 th amendment gives powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the state Reserved powers laid out in 10 th amendment gives powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the state Judicial Activism: The ruling went against federal law and U.S. Attorney General to give power to the states Judicial Activism: The ruling went against federal law and U.S. Attorney General to give power to the states

9. Influences on the Decision The judges personal views on physician- assisted suicide despite the case being about federalism and preemption The judges personal views on physician- assisted suicide despite the case being about federalism and preemption This case is touchy subject so the public’s opinion probably had some sort of influence on the court’s decision This case is touchy subject so the public’s opinion probably had some sort of influence on the court’s decision In other similar cases the Roman Catholic church has spoken out against euthanasia In other similar cases the Roman Catholic church has spoken out against euthanasia American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stands up for the rights of the individual; possibly could have affected the judges American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stands up for the rights of the individual; possibly could have affected the judges