Washington v. Glucksberg

Facts

Washington State made it a crime to assist another person in committing suicide. The statute prohibited knowingly causing or aiding another person to attempt suicide. The law reflected a long-standing tradition in many states of criminalizing assisted suicide and treating it as contrary to public policy.

A group of physicians and terminally ill patients challenged the law. The plaintiffs argued that some terminally ill individuals experience severe suffering and seek medical assistance to end their lives in a controlled and dignified manner. They contended that competent adults should have the liberty to choose assisted death and that doctors should be permitted to provide assistance under careful conditions.

The challengers argued that Washington’s ban violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed a fundamental liberty interest in personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and end-of-life decision-making. They analogized assisted suicide to constitutionally protected decisions such as refusing medical treatment and other intimate personal choices recognized in the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence.

Washington defended the statute as a legitimate exercise of state police power. The state argued it had strong interests in preserving human life, protecting vulnerable persons from coercion or abuse, preventing suicide generally, maintaining medical ethics, and avoiding a slippery slope toward euthanasia.

The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the asserted right to physician-assisted suicide is a fundamental liberty interest protected by substantive due process.

Issues

Does the Due Process Clause protect a fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide?

Rule

Under substantive due process, courts may recognize unenumerated fundamental rights only if the asserted liberty interest is:

deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, and
implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed.

When a claimed right is not fundamental under this test, the law is reviewed under rational basis scrutiny.

Application

The Court approached the case with caution and emphasized the need for restraint in substantive due process. It noted that recognizing new fundamental rights risks turning judges into policymakers and removing controversial issues from democratic debate.

The Court required a careful description of the asserted right. Instead of framing the right broadly as autonomy or dignity, the Court described it narrowly as a right to assistance in committing suicide. It then examined whether that specific right was deeply rooted in American legal tradition.

Historically, the Court found that assisted suicide and suicide-related assistance had long been condemned and criminalized. The Court emphasized consistent legal prohibitions in state laws and common law traditions. This history weighed strongly against recognition of assisted suicide as a fundamental constitutional right.

The plaintiffs argued that the Constitution protects bodily autonomy and decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The Court distinguished those precedents. Refusing medical treatment involves rejecting unwanted bodily intrusion and letting nature take its course, while assisted suicide involves affirmative help to end life. The Court treated this distinction as legally meaningful.

Because the right was not fundamental, the Court applied rational basis review. Washington’s statute easily survived because the state identified multiple legitimate interests: preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting vulnerable individuals, maintaining medical ethics, and avoiding pressure on the elderly or disabled. The Court recognized that these policy judgments were for legislatures, and the state could reasonably conclude that a categorical ban was necessary.

In future cases, Glucksberg becomes a key method case: it sets the structured test for recognizing new substantive due process rights and reinforces a tradition-based, narrow-right framing approach. It is frequently used to show how courts evaluate claims to new unenumerated rights and when they defer under rational basis review.

Holding

The Court held that the Due Process Clause does not protect a fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide. Washington’s ban was constitutional under rational basis review.

Court

The case was decided by the United States Supreme Court. It reviewed Washington’s criminal ban on assisted suicide and upheld the law, emphasizing history-and-tradition limits on substantive due process rights.

Exam Notes

Key substantive due process methodology case
Fundamental rights must be deeply rooted in history and tradition
Court requires careful/narrow description of asserted right
Assisted suicide not recognized as fundamental right
Law upheld under rational basis
State interests: preserving life, protecting vulnerable, ethics, slippery slope concerns
High-frequency for essays on unenumerated rights and due process
Contrasts with privacy/autonomy line (Griswold/Roe/Casey)
Strong example of judicial restraint in substantive due process