The debate over assisted suicide in the U.S. has intensified recently, with two new lawsuits emerging in just a month.
As of 2026, thirteen states and the District of Columbia permit assisted suicide, and currently, two states are embroiled in legal battles regarding their proposed laws. Federal law does not acknowledge a right to physician-assisted suicide, leaving individual states to make their own decisions.
From 2014 to 2024, instances of physician-assisted suicide surged by a staggering 1000%, according to data from Aging with Dignity. Since 1997, at least 14,446 Americans have opted for this choice, though the actual figure is likely even higher.
Let’s delve into five pivotal court cases that have influenced the assisted suicide discussion in America.
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
In 1997, Washington v. Glucksberg marked a significant Supreme Court ruling on this matter. Dr. Harold Glucksberg, along with four other doctors, three terminally ill patients, and a group named Compassion in Dying, challenged Washington’s ban on assisted suicide. The lawsuit highlighted that four doctors would have assisted a terminally ill patient had the law not prohibited it.
The court ruled unanimously that the Constitution does not safeguard the right to physician-assisted suicide. It determined that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits states to impose restrictions on assisted suicide. This ruling allows states the authority to enact laws against the practice.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, “In nearly every state, and indeed in nearly every Western democracy, assisted suicide is a crime. State bans on assisted suicide reflect a long-standing commitment to protect and preserve human life.”
The court concluded that physician-assisted suicide isn’t a fundamental liberty interest, leaving its legalization to state discretion.
Subsequently, Washington legalized physician-assisted suicide in 2008, with the law enacted in 2009.
Vacco v. Quill (1997)
Also in 1997, Vacco v. Quill presented another case closely related to Glucksberg, as both were decided on the same day. This lawsuit contested New York’s prohibition on assisted suicide, which permitted patients to refuse life-saving treatments but classified assisted suicide as a crime.
The plaintiffs argued that rejecting life-saving treatment was effectively the same as opting for physician-assisted suicide. They questioned whether the ban violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that it did not.
The judgment established that neither due process nor the Equal Protection Clause necessitated the state to authorize physician-assisted suicide.
Gonzalez v. Oregon (2006)
The 2006 case of Gonzalez v. Oregon explored if the federal government could prevent states from providing medications for those who chose assisted suicide. Oregon was the first state to enact the Assisted Suicide Act in 1994.
In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that using controlled substances for assisted suicide wasn’t lawful under the Controlled Substances Act. The court ultimately decided that the Act did not empower the Attorney General to prohibit physicians from prescribing controlled substances in line with state laws allowing physician-assisted suicide.
Currently, physician-assisted suicide is legal in several states including Oregon, Washington, California, and others.
New York State Medical Assistance in Death Law Litigation (2026)
A recent lawsuit filed in June by various disability coalitions claims that New York’s assisted suicide law endangers individuals with disabilities. The law, set to take effect on August 5, allows terminally ill New Yorkers with less than six months to live to request life-ending medication.
The lawsuit argues that this law discriminates against people with disabilities and creates a “deadly and discriminatory” system that could pressure them into choices that jeopardize their lives. It suggests that patients could receive end-of-life medications even if not terminally ill by denying them necessary medical care they may require.
The plaintiffs also assert that this law infringes upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The groups involved in this suit include the Brooklyn Center for Disability Independence and others.
According to legal representatives, this law sets up an unequal system that favors life-ending options over available support programs for individuals with disabilities.
Illinois End-of-Life Options Act Litigation (2026)
On June 11, a doctor and two individuals with disabilities, along with several advocacy organizations, filed a lawsuit to block Illinois’ End-of-Life Options Act, which is scheduled to be implemented on September 12. The plaintiffs argue that the law discriminates against disabled individuals.
While the act permits physicians to prescribe lethal medications under specific circumstances, critics claim it lacks adequate protections for those with disabilities. They argue that the law isn’t clear about eligibility and could lead to undue pressure from various entities to prematurely end lives.
According to the lawsuit, the End of Life Options Act devalues the experiences of disabled individuals and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. To qualify for the medication, patients must meet a series of requirements, such as being 18 years or older and self-administering the drug.
