Can People Come to New Jersey to Die?
This situation reminds us of the current debate over whether women can leave states with post-<i>Dobbs</i> abortion bans to go to states where the procedure is legal.
November 09, 2024 at 04:32 PM
4 minute read
Constitutional LawIn 2022, we praised our state’s 2019 Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act in the context of our colleague Anne Singer’s decision to end her life under the provisions of the Act. This compassionate law provides significant rights to residents of New Jersey. Death with dignity is another important choice that the U. S. Supreme Court left to the states. Glucksberg v. Washington (1997). Should this deeply personal option be available to residents of other states that do not have such laws?
In a federal country like ours we are used to different policies among states ranging from how many witnesses are required for a will to whether abortion or marijuana are legal. In 2019, New Jersey joined what are now 10 other states in reversing the ban on physician assisted suicide and legalizing death with dignity.
New Jersey hospice doctors and out-of-state, terminally ill patients filed suit in Camden federal district court alleging that the Act’s limitation to NJ residents violated the federal constitution. Govatos v. Murphy, Case No. 23-cv-12601 (RMB/EAP). In what appears to be a decision of first impression in the nation, Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb dismissed the complaint and upheld the Act’s limitation to NJ residents. Two other states stopped enforcing their residency requirements after they were sued but before any decision.
This situation, of course, reminds us of the current debate over whether women can leave states with post-Dobbs abortion bans to go to states where the procedure is legal. The two issues may raise similar religious, emotional and legal questions. In contrast to the matter of death with dignity, there is no residency requirement in New Jersey for abortion.
Bumb rejected Privileges and Immunities arguments because medical aid in dying is not “basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union,” and applied rational basis review to dismiss fundamental rights arguments. She further held that under the Dormant Commerce Clause the NJ policy was not unconstitutional because it did not amount to economic protectionism. Finally, she determined that because plaintiffs were not a suspect class and did not assert a fundamental right, their Equal Protection claim failed.
Bumb observed that to allow the out-of-state plaintiffs access to New Jersey’s legal protection would directly contravene their home state’s criminalization of assisted suicide. Further, she accepted the state’s concern that accommodating plaintiffs might subject NJ doctors to criminal charges in the plaintiffs’ home states.
The case will now be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It is less likely, although possible, that the U.S. Supreme Court will later take up the case. Often, it waits for issues to be considered by at least several circuits.
We question the strength of Bumb's acceptance of the state’s asserted interest in protecting New Jersey medical professionals from criminal prosecution in other states. We may soon have an answer to that question in the abortion context. Aside from the federal constitutional arguments, will problems result from opening up New Jersey's process to other state's residents? Are such problems different from those, if any, that arise in the abortion context?
We are not sure of the legislative debates that took place concerning the residency requirement in 2019. As noted, two states, Vermont and Oregon, decided not to enforce their residency requirements for medical assistance in dying after being sued by out-of-state plaintiffs. Maybe, in addition to a federal court’s consideration, our Legislature should at least hold hearings on the burdens on our medical system and the likelihood of criminal prosecution. It is possible that a legislative answer might make this compassionate, personal option available to people from other states.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All3rd Circuit Judges Zero In on Constitutional Challenges to Medicare Drug Pricing Program
Does Free Speech Trump Confidentiality in Harrassment Investigations?
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250