Gonzales v oregon

Ashcroft On November 6,Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a Directive stating that a doctor could lose his or her federal registration to prescribe controlled substances if that registration is used to prescribe federally controlled substances for assisted suicide. The Ashcroft Directive became the subject of court proceedings. On May 26,in a decision, the Ninth Circuit declared that Ashcroft overstepped his authority in issuing the Directive.

Gonzales v oregon

Respondents are the State of Oregon, Peter A. The order of the district court granting respondents' motion for summary judgment Pet. A petition for rehearing was denied on August 11, Pet. The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on November 9,and was granted on February 22, The jurisdiction of this Court rests on 28 U.

The CSA establishes a federal scheme that comprehensively regulates the manufacture, distribution, and possession of controlled substances. The CSA thus makes it unlawful to "manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with Gonzales v oregon to manufacture, distribute, or dispense" any controlled substance, "[e]xcept as authorized by [21 U.

Gonzales v oregon

The CSA authorizes the Attorney General to deny or revoke the registration of a practitioner "if he determines that the issuance of such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.

In determining the "public interest" for registration purposes, the Attorney General considers a number of factors, including the registrant's compliance with federal, state, and local laws relating to controlled substances and "such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.

Gonzales v. Oregon - Brief (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice

Registered physicians or other practitioners may dispense controlled substances only "in the course of professional practice or research," 21 U. A physician who dispenses controlled substances outside the "accepted limits" of medical practice is subject Gonzales v oregon prosecution under 21 U.

Under the CSA, each controlled substance is placed on one of five schedules, depending on whether the substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, the relative abuse potential of the substance, and the extent to which abuse of the substance may lead to physical or psychological dependence.

The Act imposes varying regulatory restrictions Gonzales v oregon controlled substances depending on the applicable schedule. Human consumption of schedule I controlled substances is permissible only in a research setting where the research has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration FDA and the researcher has obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration DEA a registration authorizing the specific research protocol.

IIf ; see United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, U. By contrast, substances in schedules II through V have a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," 21 U.

With narrow exceptions not relevant here, substances in schedules II, III, and IV may be dispensed only pursuant to the "prescription of a practitioner. When the CSA was enacted inCongress made an initial assignment of controlled substances to the schedules it believed appropriate.

Congress authorized the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to add or remove substances or to transfer substances from one schedule to another based upon statutory criteria that take into account changes in medical and scientific understanding and shifts in patterns of abuse.

States remain free to enact their own laws relating to controlled substances, such as their own criminal penalties, but state laws are preempted to the extent of any "positive conflict" between a provision of state law and the CSA such that the two "cannot consistently stand together.

One of those regulations, now found at 21 C. As this Court noted in Moore, the requirement that a controlled substance be prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose may be implicit in various provisions of the CSA, such as 21 U.

Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia The Court of Appeals held in the alternative that the Interpretive Rule could not be squared with the plain language of the CSA, which targets only conventional drug abuse and excludes the Attorney General from decisions on medical policy. II Executive actors often must interpret the enactments Congress has charged them with enforcing and implementing.

See Moore, U. Essentially the same requirement flows from the fact that a physician issuing a prescription under the CSA must act "in the course of professional practice or research. Indeed, a central condition for the lawful manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a substance under schedules II through V is that the substance "has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

The DWDA allows, as a matter of Oregon law, the prescribing and dispensing of "medication" for the purpose of enabling an individual with a terminal disease to commit suicide. It requires the physician prescribing or dispensing the lethal substance to ensure that the patient is a resident of Oregon, is competent, has a terminal disease with less than six months of life-expectancy, and is making a voluntary and informed decision to obtain the substance for the purpose of ending his or her life.

Gonzales v. Carhart - Wikipedia

A second physician must also verify most of those facts. The DWDA provides that a physician who prescribes or dispenses a lethal amount or combination of drugs in accordance with the DWDA shall not "be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action" for doing so.

Oregon is the only State in the Union that purports to authorize physician-assisted suicide. Inthe Attorney General sought an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel OLC in the Department of Justice on the question whether prescribing drugs for the purpose of assisting in a person's suicide, as contemplated in Oregon's DWDA, would constitute a valid prescription pursuant to the CSA and its implementing regulations.

On June 27,OLC issued a memorandum concluding that "assisting in suicide is not a 'legitimate medical purpose' that would justify a physician's dispensing controlled substances consistent with the CSA.

The OLC memorandum concluded that Oregon's ballot initiative likewise could not immunize a physician from federal prosecution or loss of registration under the CSA, if the Attorney General determined, pursuant to the regulatory authority granted to him in the CSA, that assisting an individual to commit suicide does not constitute a "legitimate medical purpose" for which controlled substances can be prescribed.

The OLC memorandum also canvassed the views of medical and nursing associations, federal and state law, and judicial opinions and concluded, based on that review, that despite the Oregon voters' approval, physician-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose.

The memorandum explained that "state law and policy, with the sole exception of Oregon's, emphatically oppose assisted suicide," id. For example, the memorandum noted that the Health Care Financing Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services had determined that physician-assisted suicide is not eligible for reimbursement under Medicare because it is "not reasonable and necessary to the diagnosis and treatment of disease or injury.

The Attorney General made clear that those conclusions "appl[y] regardless of whether state law authorizes or permits such conduct by practitioners or others.

That court held the interpretive rule invalid and enjoined its application. The federal parties appealed. The court of appeals first held that the district court had lacked jurisdiction over respondents' suit.Contact the Small Business Advocate for help navigating the rules and regulations of state and local government.

Find voter information including voter registration and other voter services. Make a difference in Oregon. Gonzales v. Oregon settled the important issue of whether the Federal Government could intervene in a State’s ability to allow death-with-dignity laws. This decision makes it much easier for States to determine their own destiny with regard to enacting assisted suicide laws.

Gonzales v. Oregon was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in In , Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to stop Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. This law allowed terminally ill people to get a prescription for a medication that they could take to kill themselves.

According to our research of Texas and other state lists there were 23 registered sex offenders living in Gonzales, Texas as of September 20, The ratio of number of residents in Gonzales to the number of sex offenders is to 1. Median real estate property taxes paid for housing units with.

no. 04— alberto r. gonzales, attorney general, et al., petitioners v. oregon et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. Jan 17,  · As explained below, the court in Gonzales v.

Oregon did not completely close the door to federal regulation of physician-assisted suicide. In fact, it may not even have foreclosed administrative regulation of the practice under the CSA.

Gonzales v. Oregon :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center