Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Washington v. Glucksberg

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawsubstantive due processright to diefundamental rightscareful descriptionDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentassisted suicide

Facts

Washington made it a felony to knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide, while separately providing that withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment at a patient's direction does not constitute suicide. Respondent physicians alleged that they sometimes treated terminally ill, suffering patients and would assist such patients in ending their lives but for the statute. They brought a facial constitutional challenge asserting a liberty interest of mentally competent, terminally ill adults in choosing physician-assisted suicide. Washington had long prohibited assisted suicide and had recently reaffirmed that prohibition through legislation and voter action.

Issue

Does Washington's prohibition on knowingly causing or aiding another person to attempt suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by infringing a fundamental liberty interest of competent, terminally ill adults to obtain physician assistance in ending their lives? If no fundamental right exists, is the ban nevertheless rationally related to legitimate state interests?

Rule

In substantive due process cases, courts must begin with the Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices and must carefully describe the asserted liberty interest. Only rights and liberties that are objectively deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty qualify as fundamental; otherwise, the challenged law need only be rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada makes it a felony for any person to knowingly provide lethal drugs to another person for self-administration, but separately permits competent patients to refuse ventilators and feeding tubes. Elena Ruiz, a mentally competent adult with advanced cancer in Reno, seeks a declaration that the statute violates substantive due process because it interferes with her autonomy, dignity, and control over the timing of death.

How should a court, following the controlling substantive due process methodology, characterize Elena's asserted liberty interest?

Explanation. The majority requires a careful description of the asserted liberty interest rather than framing it at a high level of abstraction such as autonomy, dignity, or self-sovereignty. In this setting, the claim must be described as a right to commit suicide with another's assistance. Once so described, the Court asks whether that specific right is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition. (Derived from Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).)