Washington v. Glucksberg
Encyclopedia
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702
(1997), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
was a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
.
The District Court ruled in favor of Glucksberg, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed. Then, after rehearing the case en banc, the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier panel and affirmed the District Court's decision. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 8, 1997. The question presented was whether the protection of the Due Process Clause included a right to commit suicide, and therefore commit suicide with another's assistance.
's Due Process Clause. The Court asserted that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was therefore not protected under the 14th Amendment. As previously decided in Moore v. East Cleveland
, liberty interests not "deeply rooted in the nation's history" do not qualify as being a protected liberty interest. Assisted-suicide had been frowned upon for centuries and majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant. For example, at early common law, the state confiscated the property of a person who committed suicide. Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade
, Rehnquist used English common law to exemplify American "tradition" and therefore determine what rights were "deeply rooted in the nation's history." Indeed, Rehnquist frequently cited Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
in the opinion.
In addition, the Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered various compelling state interests, such as the preservation of human life and protecting the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those from ending their lives simply due to financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
wrote the majority opinion for the court. Justice O'Connor concurred. Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens all wrote opinions concurring in the judgment of the court.
In 2008, Washington State voters adopted an assisted suicide law by a wide margin.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1997), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
Facts
Dr. Harold Glucksberg, a physician—along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients, and the non-profit organization, Compassion in Dying, counseling those considering assisted-suicide—challenged Washington state's ban against assisted suicide in the Natural Death Act of 1979. They claimed that assisted suicideAssisted suicide
Assisted suicide is the common term for actions by which an individual helps another person voluntarily bring about his or her own death. "Assistance" may mean providing one with the means to end one's own life, but may extend to other actions. It differs to euthanasia where another person ends...
was a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
.
The District Court ruled in favor of Glucksberg, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
reversed. Then, after rehearing the case en banc, the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier panel and affirmed the District Court's decision. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 8, 1997. The question presented was whether the protection of the Due Process Clause included a right to commit suicide, and therefore commit suicide with another's assistance.
Decision
The decision reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in Washington's Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the 14th AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
's Due Process Clause. The Court asserted that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was therefore not protected under the 14th Amendment. As previously decided in Moore v. East Cleveland
Moore v. East Cleveland
Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494 , is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court held 5-4 that an ordinance which restricted housing to a single family and defined the family as a nuclear family, rather than an extended family, was unconstitutional and a violation of the Due Process...
, liberty interests not "deeply rooted in the nation's history" do not qualify as being a protected liberty interest. Assisted-suicide had been frowned upon for centuries and majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant. For example, at early common law, the state confiscated the property of a person who committed suicide. Like Blackmun in Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,...
, Rehnquist used English common law to exemplify American "tradition" and therefore determine what rights were "deeply rooted in the nation's history." Indeed, Rehnquist frequently cited Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state regulations regarding abortion were challenged...
in the opinion.
In addition, the Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered various compelling state interests, such as the preservation of human life and protecting the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those from ending their lives simply due to financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
William Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
wrote the majority opinion for the court. Justice O'Connor concurred. Justices Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens all wrote opinions concurring in the judgment of the court.
In 2008, Washington State voters adopted an assisted suicide law by a wide margin.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 521
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- Gonzales v. OregonGonzales v. OregonGonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of...
- Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthCruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthCruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 , was a United States Supreme Court case argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990...
- Washington Initiative 1000
- Baxter v. MontanaBaxter v. MontanaBaxter v. Montana, was a Montana Supreme Court case, argued on September 2, 2009, and decided on December 31, 2009, that addressed the question of whether the state's constitution guaranteed terminally ill patients a right to lethal prescription medication from their physicians.-Background of the...