Master The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, recognized a substantive due process liberty interest for competent, terminally ill adults to obtain physician-assisted death and invalidated Washington's categorical criminal ban (later reversed by the Supreme Court). with this comprehensive case brief.
Compassion in Dying v. Washington is a landmark Ninth Circuit decision that squarely confronted whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a competent, terminally ill adult's choice to hasten death with a physician's assistance. Against the backdrop of expanding privacy and autonomy jurisprudence—from Griswold to Roe to Casey—and the Supreme Court's recognition in Cruzan that patients may refuse life-sustaining treatment, the en banc court held that Washington's categorical criminal prohibition on physician-assisted suicide unconstitutionally infringed a fundamental liberty interest. The decision framed the debate over end-of-life autonomy as part of constitutional liberty, insisting that the state's interests could be accommodated through regulation rather than absolute prohibition.
Historically significant in its own right, the case's true doctrinal impact is best understood alongside its immediate aftermath: the Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), rejected the Ninth Circuit's recognition of a fundamental right, upholding Washington's ban. Even so, Compassion in Dying helped crystallize the arguments, interests, and analytical pathways that courts, legislatures, and scholars continue to navigate in the physician-assisted death context. It remains an essential study in substantive due process methodology, judicial role, and the law's response to modern medical realities.
79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
Washington criminalized causing or aiding a suicide. Several terminally ill, mentally competent adults—together with their treating physicians and the nonprofit Compassion in Dying—brought a facial and as-applied challenge in federal court. The patients alleged imminent, unbearable suffering and sought the option to obtain a physician's prescription for lethal medication to self-administer at a time of their choosing. The physicians asserted that medical ethics and their duty to alleviate suffering compelled them to respect informed requests from competent, terminally ill patients. Plaintiffs argued that, in light of modern medicine's capacity to prolong the dying process, the Due Process Clause protects a liberty interest in choosing the time and manner of one's death and that Washington's blanket criminal ban impermissibly burdens that interest. The district court enjoined enforcement of the statute as applied to competent, terminally ill adults seeking physician assistance. A Ninth Circuit panel initially reversed, but the court granted rehearing en banc and considered whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects such end-of-life decision-making. The state defended the law by invoking interests in preserving life, preventing suicide (and coercion of the vulnerable), safeguarding medical ethics, and avoiding a slide toward euthanasia.
Does Washington's categorical criminal prohibition on physician-assisted suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by denying competent, terminally ill adults the liberty to choose the time and manner of death with a physician's assistance?
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects fundamental liberty interests in intimate and personal decision-making, including bodily integrity and medical autonomy. Where a statute substantially burdens a fundamental liberty interest, it must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests; broad, categorical prohibitions that needlessly infringe such an interest are unconstitutional, at least as applied to the protected class of individuals. In assessing end-of-life autonomy, precedents recognizing the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment (e.g., Cruzan) and privacy in intimate medical decisions (e.g., Casey) inform the scope of protected liberty.
Yes. The Ninth Circuit (en banc) held that the liberty component of the Due Process Clause encompasses a competent, terminally ill adult's choice to obtain physician assistance in dying. Washington's categorical criminal ban, as applied to such individuals and the physicians who would assist them, is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to the state's asserted interests.
The court grounded its analysis in the Supreme Court's substantive due process jurisprudence protecting intimate and personal decisions central to individual dignity, autonomy, and bodily integrity. Drawing from Griswold, Roe, and Casey, the majority reasoned that the Constitution protects the most intimate choices about family life, reproduction, and bodily control, and that the decision of a competent, terminally ill adult to hasten death to avoid needless suffering falls within that protected sphere. Cruzan, which recognized a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing life-sustaining treatment, underscored for the court that end-of-life decision-making is constitutionally significant. The majority found no principled constitutional distinction between a competent patient's right to refuse a ventilator or artificial nutrition (even when death is the foreseeable outcome) and a competent, terminally ill patient's choice to self-administer prescribed medication to hasten death. Having identified a fundamental liberty interest, the court applied heightened scrutiny. It accepted that Washington's interests in preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting vulnerable populations from coercion or abuse, maintaining medical ethics, and avoiding a slippery slope toward nonvoluntary euthanasia were important and, in the abstract, compelling. But the court concluded the state failed narrow tailoring. A categorical criminal ban burdened all competent, terminally ill patients regardless of their circumstances, despite the availability of regulatory alternatives: physician eligibility criteria; mental competency determinations; informed consent; second-physician confirmations of diagnosis, prognosis, and voluntariness; waiting periods; documentation and reporting; and penalties for coercion or abuse. The court emphasized that, properly regulated, physician-assisted death for this limited class could further, not undermine, core medical ethics by honoring informed patient autonomy and alleviating refractory suffering when palliative care cannot. The majority limited its holding to physician assistance in dying where the patient self-administers the medication, explicitly excluding active euthanasia (physician-administered lethal measures) and nonvoluntary contexts. It also noted that equal protection analysis was unnecessary given the due process disposition. While acknowledging historical prohibitions on suicide, the court observed that constitutional liberty analysis is not controlled solely by tradition, particularly where modern medical technology meaningfully alters the nature and burdens of dying. In sum, because Washington's absolute ban swept too broadly and less-restrictive means could serve the state's interests, the statute, as applied to competent, terminally ill adults seeking physician assistance, could not stand.
For law students, Compassion in Dying is a pivotal study in how lower courts identify and define unenumerated fundamental rights under substantive due process. The decision synthesizes privacy, autonomy, and bodily integrity precedents and then applies strict or heightened scrutiny to assess whether the state's interests can justify a categorical prohibition. It also illustrates judicial management of sensitive moral questions by narrowly tailoring holdings to specific contexts (competent, terminally ill adults; patient self-administration) and by stressing regulatory alternatives. Doctrinally, the case is equally important for its aftermath. The Supreme Court, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), reversed, rejecting recognition of a fundamental right to assisted suicide and upholding Washington's ban under a history-and-tradition framework. Alongside Vacco v. Quill (1997), which rejected an equal protection challenge to New York's similar ban, Glucksberg set the governing federal constitutional baseline. Nonetheless, Compassion in Dying helped catalyze state-level legislation (e.g., Oregon's Death with Dignity Act) and continues to inform debates over substantive due process methodology, medical ethics, and end-of-life policy.
The court viewed both as expressions of the same protected liberty in bodily integrity and medical self-determination for competent adults. It reasoned there is no constitutionally principled difference between declining treatment that predictably hastens death and choosing to self-administer prescribed medication to avoid protracted suffering. Both reflect an individual's autonomous choice about the manner and timing of death when terminally ill.
After recognizing a fundamental liberty interest in a competent, terminally ill adult's choice to seek physician assistance in dying, the court applied heightened (effectively strict) scrutiny. It evaluated whether the state's compelling interests were pursued through narrow tailoring. It concluded a categorical criminal ban was overinclusive, particularly given plausible, less-restrictive regulatory alternatives designed to protect the vulnerable and preserve medical ethics.
No. While equal protection claims were presented, the en banc court resolved the case under substantive due process and did not reach equal protection. By contrast, the Second Circuit in Vacco v. Quill relied on equal protection to strike down New York's ban, a holding later reversed by the Supreme Court.
The holding was expressly limited to competent, terminally ill adults who voluntarily and knowingly seek physician assistance, and to physician-prescribed medication that the patient self-administers. The decision did not extend to euthanasia (physician-administered lethal acts), nonvoluntary contexts, minors, or situations lacking rigorous procedural safeguards.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), reversed. The Court declined to recognize a fundamental right to assisted suicide and upheld Washington's ban, emphasizing a careful history-and-tradition analysis for substantive due process claims. Glucksberg, together with Vacco v. Quill, remains the controlling federal constitutional law on this issue.
The decision framed physician-assisted death as a question of autonomy and regulatory design, highlighting safeguards that could mitigate state concerns. That framing influenced state legislatures and voters: Oregon enacted—and courts upheld—its Death with Dignity Act, later followed by several states adopting similar regimes. The case also shaped scholarly and judicial discourse on how to evaluate unenumerated rights under substantive due process.
Compassion in Dying v. Washington is a cornerstone in the legal and ethical discourse surrounding end-of-life autonomy. The Ninth Circuit's recognition of a substantive due process liberty interest for competent, terminally ill adults reflected an effort to harmonize modern medical realities with constitutional commitments to dignity and bodily integrity. Its application of heightened scrutiny, focus on narrow tailoring, and embrace of regulatory alternatives provided a detailed template for evaluating categorical bans in sensitive domains.
Although the Supreme Court reversed in Glucksberg, the Ninth Circuit's analysis remains central to understanding substantive due process methodology, the contours of medical autonomy, and the policy architecture of physician-assisted death. For law students, the case offers a rigorous example of rights identification, interest balancing, and careful cabining of a holding—skills that are essential for addressing evolving constitutional questions at the intersection of law, medicine, and morality.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →