Five court cases test legal boundaries on physician-assisted suicide

By Daily Caller News Foundation (/journals/dcnf)

Assisted-suicide laws have divided the American population and sparked two lawsuits filed in the past month.

As of 2026, 13 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the assisted suicide process and two of those states are facing current lawsuits against laws set to go into effect. Current federal law does not grant a right to doctor-assisted suicide, making it a matter for each state to decide.

Physician-assisted suicides increased 1000% between 2014 and 2024, according to Aging with Dignity. At least 14,446 Americans have died from them since 1997, with the actual number likely to be even higher.

Here are five major court cases that have forever shaped America’s assisted-suicide debate.

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Washington vs. Glucksberg, a case decided in 1997, marks the first landmark Supreme Court decision to directly address the issue. Dr. Harold Glucksberg, four other physicians, three terminally ill patients and the organization Compassion in Dying filed the lawsuit to challenge Washington’s ban on assisted suicide, according to the case.

The four physicians claimed that if it had not been for Washington state’s assisted suicide ban, they would have assisted terminally ill patients in ending their lives, according to the case.

The Court unanimously held that the Constitution does not protect the right to physician-assisted suicide and the states can ban it on their own basis because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause which states, “no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Therefore, the states could pass a law prohibiting the practice.

“In almost every State-indeed, in almost every western democracy- it is a crime to assist in a suicide. The States’ assisted-suicide bans are not innovations. Rather, they are longstanding expressions of the States’ commitment to the protection and preservation of all human life,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the case’s majority opinion.

The ruling found that physician-assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest and it is left up to the states to decide on legalization of the process, according to the case.

Washington later legalized physician-assisted suicide in 2008 and it went into effect in 2009.

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

Vacco v. Quill, decided in 1997, is the companion case to Washington vs. Glucksberg, which the Court decided on the same day.

The case argued against New York’s assisted suicide ban because at the time patients were allowed to refuse life-saving treatment, but criminalized physician-assisted suicide, according to the case. Plaintiffs argued that refusing life-saving treatment was essentially the same as physician-assisted suicide.

The case posed the question of “whether New York’s prohibition on assisting suicide therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” according to the suit. The ruling held that it did not.

The case led to the conclusion that neither due process nor the equal protection clause required states to allow physician-assisted suicide.

Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)

Gonzales v. Oregon, decided in 2006, answered the question of whether the federal government could use its power to shut down the state’s ability to administer medication for those that chose to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Oregon became the first state to legalize assisted suicide laws in 1994.

In 2001 Attorney General John Ashcroft implemented a rule, “declaring that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical practice and that dispensing or prescribing them for this purpose is unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act,” the lawsuit states.

The Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the Attorney General “to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure,” according to the suit.

Physician-assisted suicide is currently legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Delaware, Illinois, Montana, and New York, according to Death With Dignity.

New York Medical Aid In Dying Act Lawsuit (2026)

The New York Medical Aid In Dying Act Lawsuit filed on June 11 by multiple disability coalitions allege that assisted-suicide laws in the Empire State are deadly and discriminatory to those with disabilities, according to the lawsuit.

A law set to go into effect in the state on Aug. 5 allows terminally ill new Yorkers who have less than six months to live the option to request medication to end their life, the suit states.

The lawsuit alleges that the laws are discriminatory against people with disabilities and that its a “deadly and discriminatory system that steers people with life-threatening disabilities away from necessary lifesaving and preserving mental health care, medical care, and disability supports, and toward death by suicide under the guise of mercy and dignity in dying.”

The lawsuit is arguing that the law will allow patients to obtain life-ending medication even if they are not suffering from terminal illness by declining already available medical treatment.

Plaintiffs are arguing that the laws are a violation of the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the suit.

Plaintiffs in the case include Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Institute for Patient Rights, United Spinal Association, and many other disability coalition groups, according to law firm RBGG.

The laws “create a separate and unequal system in which people with life-threatening disabilities are offered death instead of the support programs everyone else gets,” Matt Valliere, President and executive director of the Institution for Patients’ Rights said according to RBGG.

Illinois End Of Life Options Act Lawsuit (2026)

A physician, two disabled patients, and multiple advocacy groups filed a lawsuit June 11 to stop the Illinois End of Life Options Act that is set to become a law on Sept. 12, alleging that it discriminates against disabled patients.

The law will allow doctors to prescribe lethal medication to end a patient’s life if they meet the required criteria, but there are claims that these End Of Life Options Act lack the “guard rails” to protected disabled patients.

The lawsuit claims that the bill lacks “objective parameters for eligibility.” The case argues that disabled individuals will face pressure “from insurers and hospitals and even physicians to consent to the early loss of their life.”

The plaintiffs claim that the End Of Life Options Act devalues the lives of those with disabilities and is in violation of the Americans with Disability Act, according to the lawsuit.

To qualify for the medication, one must be over 18 years of age, be able to administer the medication themselves, have a condition that a medical professional deems they will not live for more than six months, the decision must also be one’s own and not influenced by others. If these qualifications are met then two physicians must separately verify that the patient meets these criteria, according to Legal Clarity.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].