# Reply Brief — Gonzales v. Oregon

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0051%3A41

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Reply Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2006
- **Citation:** 546 U.S. 243

## Text

| AUG
Sau) Orrie}

No. 04-623

Jn the Supreme Court of the United States

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL. ET AL..
PETITIONERS

STATE OF OREGON, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS

PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
De partie nt of Justice
Washington, DC. 205.20-0001

(02) 915-2717

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. The Attorney General reasonably concluded that
assisting a person’s suicide is not a “legitimate
medical purpose” for which drugs can be distributed
under the Controlled Substances Act

A. The Attorney General’s interpretive rule is

reasonable and is entitled to deference
B. The CSA establishes a uniform national

standard for distributing controlled

substances

Il. There is no requirement of a clear statement
applicable here

A. A presumption against federal preemption
does not apply because the CSA does not
preempt the DWDA

B. Because the CSA, as interpreted by the
Attorney General, is clearly constitutional,
the doctrine of constitutional avoidance does
not apply

C. There is no requirement that Congress make
a particularly “clear statement” whenever it
addresses an issue that is also within “traditional

state authority”

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:
Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA,
540 U.S. 461 (2004)

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a
Great Or., 515 U.S. 687 (1995)

Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (2002)

(I)

Page

11

11

14

16

II

Cases—Continued: Page
California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v.

Dillingham Constr., N_A., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) ...cccccceeees 17
Caron vy. United States, 514 U.S. 308 (1998) ...........c0000 13,19
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837

(1984) 2,3
Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile

Co., 450 U.S. 311 (1981) 12
Christensen v. Harris County, 519 U.S. 576

(2000) 4
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504

(1992) 13
City of Edmonds vy. Oxford House, Inc., 514

U.S. 725 (1995) 17
Department of Revenue v. ACF Indus., Inc., 510

US. 3382 (1994) ..... 13
Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103

(1983) 13
Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf

Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S.

568 (1988) 18
Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 124

S. Ct. 2301 (2004) 19
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824) ......cceseeee 12
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) 17
Gonzalez v. Raich, 1258. Ct. 2195 (2004) 2, 3, 7,

%, 11, 14, 15, 16
Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs.,

Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) 17
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572 (1979) ..ecccccceeeee 17
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation

Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264 (1981) 17
Hyland v. Fukuda, 580 F.2d 977 (9th Cir.

1978) 12
Jerome v. United States, 318 US. 101 (1943) 20... cece 19

Ill
Cases—Continued: Page

Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189

(1920) 3
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) .....000 13,18
Kane v. Kulongoski, 871 P.2d 993 (Or. 1994) ............000+ = 12
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926) 19
Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925) 19
Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) 15
Martin v. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) 2
Mississippi Bank of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield,

490 U.S. 30 (1989) 18, 19
National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. Brand X

Internet Servs., 125 S. Ct. 2688 (2005) 5
Raygor v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US. 218

(1947) 18
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,

490 U.S. 382 (1989) 1
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 US.

355 (2002) 17
Shatz v. United States Dep't of Justice, 873 F 2d

1089 (8th Cir. 1989) 10
Solid Waste Agency v. United States Army Corps.

of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) 18
Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504

(1994) 1,2
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) 13, 18
United States v. Behrmann, 258 U.S. 281 (1922) ............. 3
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (194)) ............... 13, 15,

16, 18

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) 18
United States v. Mead Corp., 538 US. 213

(2001) 4
United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975) ......... 2,3,8,15

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop.,
582 U.S. 488 (2001) 3,7

IV V

Cases—Continued: Page Statutes and regulations—Continued: Page
Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 535 U.S. 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(4) 10
467 (2002) 14 21 U.S.C. &823(f5) 10
Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 (1919) 3 21 U.S.C. S23(gX1) ae >.
Wickard vy. Filburn, 317 US. 111 (1942) 16 21 USC. 824 u
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 US 3 USC. Sta) »
aie : >» Se ee 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2) (1970) 9
58 (1989) ....... saqneneueenennesnensnnes —_ 18 21 U.S.C. 830(b\(3)A)ii) 7
Constitution, statutes and regulations: 21 U.S.C. 903 12
; Dealth with Dignity Act, Or. Rev. Stat. $$ 127.800
U.S. Const. et seq. (2003) 2
Art. IV, $4 .. 17 21 C.F.R. 1306.04 7, 10
aa “4 ea ag oo 17 21 C.F.R. 1306.04(a) 1
ministrative ure ~9 USL, .
BEDMBMA) ccceene 4 Miscellaneous:
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. 201 AMA, Current Opinions of the Council of Ethical
et SEQ. .... 13 and Judicial Affairs, Opinion No. E-2.211,
Revenue Act of Feb. 24, 1919, § 1006, 40 Stat. 1131 ccs. 2 Physician-Assisted Suicide (last visit Aug. 25, 2005)
PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, Tit. L, § 105(a), . Moreover, the
DWDA regulates assisted suicide differently from Oregon’s
own regulation of medicine. The DWDA’s allowance of pre-
scriptions for assisted suicide, while prohibiting physicians
from actually administering the lethal drugs (see Oregon Br.
2, Practitioner Br. 15), which presumably reflects Oregon’s
own apparent discomfort with the idea of physicians directly
causing death, is unique. Respondents point to no other cir-
cumsiance, and we are aware of none, in which a doctor “may
prescribe, but not administer,” a substance. Oregon Br. 2.
That simply does not happen when the controlled substance
is being dispensed as “medicine.” Moreover, that anomaly
only underscores that the DWDA relies not on the physi-
cian’s medical knowledge (the lethal substances and the re-
quired dosages have been well publicized in Oregon’s DWDA
reports, see Oregon Br. 43 & n.20.), but on the physician’s
federal-law status as a distributor of schedule II substances.
The Attorney General’s interpretation thus represents not
an effort to reverse a state-law judgment about assisted sui-
cide (which remains valid in Oregon to the extent is does not
involve federally-controlled substances), but an effort to pre-
vent a State from commandeering a federal-licensee’s ability
to dispense schedule II substances for ends that are contrary
to federal law and bear little resemblance to traditional
medicine.
* + + Y *

For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the opening
brief, the judgment of the court of appeals should be re-
versed.

Respectfully submitted.

PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General

AUGUST 2005

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0051%3A41. Public record. Not legal advice.