Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to New Jersey's residency requirement for doctor-assisted suicide. The court held that the requirement did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the dormant Commerce Clause. The court concluded that New Jersey had substantial and rational reasons for limiting assisted-suicide services to its residents, including protecting patients and doctors and avoiding interstate friction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dr. Bryman had Article III and third-party standing to challenge New Jersey's residency requirement after the patient plaintiffs died.
- Whether New Jersey's residency requirement for doctor-assisted suicide violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- Whether the residency requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause.
- Whether the residency requirement violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
Holdings
- Dr. Bryman had Article III standing as a regulated doctor and could assert his patients' rights under the doctrine of third-party standing.
- New Jersey's residency requirement does not violate Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause because doctor-assisted suicide is not a traditional fundamental privilege; even assuming access to general medical care or assisted suicide were fundamental, the requirement has a substantial relationship to substantial state interests.
- New Jersey's residency classification survives rational-basis review and therefore does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- New Jersey's residency requirement does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because the law is primarily moral rather than commercial legislation and does not regulate interstate commerce or constitute economic protectionism of the type addressed by the dormant Commerce Clause.
Key quotations
“The Constitution lets it draw that line. States may keep certain goods and services in-state.” (2)
“The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only a “substantial relationship” between means and ends, not a perfect one.” (11)
“We will thus affirm the District Court’s dismissal.” (15)
Factual background
New Jersey's Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act permits terminally ill New Jersey residents with a prognosis of six months or fewer to obtain prescriptions for medication that they may take to end their own lives. The Act requires multiple requests, competency and voluntariness determinations, safeguards, residency verification, and protects complying doctors from New Jersey civil, criminal, and professional liability. Dr. Paul Bryman, a New Jersey doctor, sought to assist out-of-state patients, while patient plaintiffs sought access to New Jersey's assisted-suicide regime; the patient plaintiffs died during the litigation.
Procedural history
Bryman and several patients and doctors challenged New Jersey's residency requirement under the Privileges and Immunities, Equal Protection, and dormant Commerce Clauses. During the litigation, two patients died and another doctor retired, leaving Bryman as the remaining plaintiff. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that doctor-assisted suicide was not a fundamental privilege, that the law was not impermissibly protectionist, and that it survived rational-basis review. The Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed.