Lee v. Oregon
107 F.3d 1382 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish Article III standing to challenge a law, a plaintiff must demonstrate an "injury in fact" that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. A claim of future harm that depends on a long and speculative chain of contingent events is insufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Facts:
- Oregon voters, through an initiative, passed Measure 16, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.
- The Act creates a legal framework for a competent, terminally-ill adult resident of Oregon to request a prescription for life-ending medication.
- Janice Eisner, a plaintiff, has a progressive form of muscular dystrophy and has previously experienced bouts of clinical depression that caused her to be ambivalent about living.
- Other plaintiffs include doctors and residential care facilities who object to the Act on religious and professional grounds.
- The Act requires that an attending physician and a consulting physician both determine that the patient is suffering from a terminal disease, is capable of making an informed decision, and is acting voluntarily.
- The Act also requires the patient to make both an oral and a written request, with a 15-day waiting period between the initial oral request and the writing of a prescription.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, a group of doctors, patients, and healthcare facilities, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- The complaint sought to enjoin the enforcement of Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, alleging it violated the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes.
- The district court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, preventing the Act from taking effect.
- Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their Equal Protection claim and issued a permanent injunction against the Act.
- The district court also made rulings on which specific plaintiffs had standing to bring certain claims and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- Defendants, including the District Attorney for Lane County and the Oregon State Board of Medical Examiners, appealed the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do plaintiffs, including terminally ill patients, physicians, and residential care facilities, have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act when the alleged future harm is contingent upon a speculative chain of events?
Opinions:
Majority - Brunetti, Circuit Judge
No. The plaintiffs do not have Article III standing because their alleged injuries are too speculative and hypothetical to constitute a legally cognizable "injury in fact." The court's jurisdiction requires a plaintiff to demonstrate three elements for standing: an injury in fact, a causal connection, and redressability. The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish the first element, an injury in fact, which must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. For the patient-plaintiff, Janice Eisner, the asserted injury—that she might use the Act to end her life against her true wishes due to depression or undue influence—depends on a long chain of speculative contingencies. This includes her becoming clinically depressed, her attending and consulting physicians both misdiagnosing her as competent, the witnesses to her request failing to recognize her state, and her physician again misdiagnosing her before writing the prescription. Citing precedents like City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, the court held that such a conjectural chain of events does not constitute an imminent injury. The court also rejected the argument that standing should be found because no one else could sue, stating that the lack of a proper plaintiff is not a reason to disregard constitutional requirements. The First Amendment claims of doctors and facilities also fail for lack of standing and ripeness, as the Act provides no penalty for non-compliance with the challenged provisions, meaning there is no concrete injury and no hardship in delaying review.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant application of the strict Article III standing requirements, functioning as a jurisdictional gatekeeper to prevent federal courts from ruling on the merits of a controversial law. By dismissing the case on standing grounds, the court avoided addressing the constitutional questions surrounding physician-assisted suicide, thereby allowing the Oregon Death With Dignity Act to take effect. The ruling reinforces the principle that federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions and will not adjudicate challenges to laws based on hypothetical or speculative future harms. This case serves as a key example for law students on the critical importance of demonstrating a concrete and imminent injury-in-fact before a court will even consider the substantive legal claims.
