Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Author: Rehnquist (majority) Outcome: Government wins ($d = 0$: assisted suicide ban upheld) Concurrences: O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissents: None
1. Holding ($H_t$)
"We hold that [Washington's prohibition against 'caus[ing]' or 'aid[ing]' a suicide] does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment." (p. 735)
As constraint on admissible $(w, c)$: The holding rules out any decision rule under which a right to physician-assisted suicide is protected by the Due Process Clause. Formally, if $z$ has (liberty interest type = bodily integrity, historical grounding = low), then admissible $(w, c)$ must map to $d = 0$ (uphold the prohibition). The weight on historical grounding must be large enough to be dispositive against recognizing new substantive due process rights.
What the holding does NOT constrain:
- Whether other forms of end-of-life decision-making (e.g., withdrawal of life support) are protected
- Whether a different factual context might justify a more particularized challenge
- The potential for legislative changes to address assisted suicide
- The possibility of future cases addressing severe pain or lack of palliative care
2. Fact vector $z_t$
2a. Raw salient facts
- Historical prohibition: "Anglo-American common law has punished or otherwise disapproved of assisting suicide for over 700 years" (p. 710). Favors: government.
- State interest in preserving life: "Washington has an 'unqualified interest in the preservation of human life'" (p. 728). Favors: government.
- Potential for abuse: Concerns about "protecting vulnerable groups" and "avoiding a possible slide toward voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia" (p. 731). Favors: government.
- Medical ethics: "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer" (p. 731). Favors: government.
- Public health concerns: "Preventing the serious public-health problem of suicide" (p. 728). Favors: government.
- Lack of historical right: "This asserted right has no place in our Nation's traditions" (p. 723). Favors: government.
- Existing legal frameworks: "Washington's Natural Death Act... specifically stated that the 'withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment... shall not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide'" (p. 716). Favors: government.
2b. Dimension mapping
| Dimension | Value | Raw fact(s) mapped | Textual basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Liberty interest type | Bodily integrity | Historical prohibition | "Anglo-American common law has punished or otherwise disapproved of assisting suicide" (p. 710) |
| D2 Historical grounding | Low | Lack of historical right | "This asserted right has no place in our Nation's traditions" (p. 723) |
| D3 Level of generality | Narrow | Existing legal frameworks | "Washington's Natural Death Act" (p. 716) |
| D4 Government interest strength | Strong | State interest in preserving life | "Washington has an 'unqualified interest in the preservation of human life'" (p. 728) |
| D5 Intrusion severity | High | Potential for abuse | "Protecting vulnerable groups" (p. 731) |
| D6 Methodology | History-based (Glucksberg) | Historical prohibition | "Anglo-American common law" (p. 710) |
| D7 Institutional setting | Medical | Medical ethics | "Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer" (p. 731) |
| D8 Precedent density | High | Lack of historical right | "This asserted right has no place in our Nation's traditions" (p. 723) |
Unmapped facts:
- Public health concerns do not map directly to any existing dimension but highlight the state's interest in preventing suicide as a broader societal issue.
Notable: The Court heavily emphasizes historical grounding and the lack of a deeply rooted tradition supporting the claimed right, which is pivotal in rejecting the substantive due process claim.
3. Treatment of prior holdings ($\mathcal{F}_t$ update)
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health (1990)
- Status: Distinguished. The Court notes that Cruzan recognized a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment but did not extend to assisted suicide.
- Characterization: The right in Cruzan was "grounded in the Nation's history and traditions" (p. 725).
- Model interpretation: Reinforces the constraint that only historically grounded rights are protected under substantive due process.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992)
- Status: Distinguished. The Court acknowledges Casey's recognition of personal autonomy but limits its application.
- Characterization: Casey did not suggest that "any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected" (p. 727).
- Model interpretation: Limits the scope of autonomy-based rights to those with historical precedent.
4. Overruling (constraint removal at cost $C$)
No overruling in this case. The Court does not overrule any prior holdings but distinguishes existing precedents to clarify the limits of substantive due process.
5. Breadth
Narrow reading (what the Court explicitly holds):
- The Due Process Clause does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide.
- The decision is limited to the specific context of Washington's statute and the asserted right.
Broad reading (what the reasoning supports):
- The decision suggests a general reluctance to recognize new substantive due process rights without deep historical grounding.
- Could impact future claims involving end-of-life decisions and personal autonomy.
Breadth ambiguity: The opinion leaves open the possibility of future challenges based on different factual contexts, such as inadequate pain management or different state interests.
6. Concurrences / dissents (alternative admissible theories)
O'Connor, J., concurring
- Alternative constraint structure: Suggests that while there is no general right to assisted suicide, there may be a constitutionally cognizable interest in controlling the circumstances of one's imminent death.
- Key disagreement: Focuses on the potential for individual cases to present different constitutional questions, particularly regarding pain management.
Stevens, J., concurring in judgments
- Alternative constraint structure: Emphasizes the potential for some applications of the statute to be unconstitutional, particularly where state interests do not outweigh individual liberty interests.
- Key disagreement: Questions the absolute nature of the state's interest in preserving life.
Souter, J., concurring in judgment
- Alternative constraint structure: Advocates for a more nuanced approach to substantive due process, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of state interests.
- Key disagreement: Highlights the importance of recognizing evolving societal values and the potential for legislative experimentation.
Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgments
- Alternative constraint structure: Agrees with O'Connor's reasoning, emphasizing the importance of palliative care.
- Key disagreement: Does not elaborate significantly beyond O'Connor's concurrence.
Breyer, J., concurring in judgments
- Alternative constraint structure: Suggests that the right to die with dignity could be recognized under different circumstances, particularly where pain management is inadequate.
- Key disagreement: Focuses on the specific interest in avoiding severe pain at the end of life.
7. Reasoning revealing implicit weights on dimensions
Historical grounding dominates:
"This asserted right has no place in our Nation's traditions" (p. 723).
The Court places significant weight on the lack of historical support for the claimed right, indicating that historical grounding is a critical factor in substantive due process analysis.
State interest in preserving life:
"Washington has an 'unqualified interest in the preservation of human life'" (p. 728).
The Court emphasizes the strength of the state's interest in preserving life, suggesting that this interest heavily outweighs individual claims to assisted suicide.
Potential for abuse and slippery slope concerns:
"Protecting vulnerable groups... and avoiding a possible slide toward voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia" (p. 731).
The Court highlights concerns about the potential for abuse and the difficulty of containing the right within narrow bounds, indicating a high weight on preventing unintended consequences.
Medical ethics and professional integrity:
"Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer" (p. 731).
The Court underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the medical profession, suggesting that this consideration strongly influences the decision to uphold the statute.