The most controversial case centered on the right-to-die movement: whether terminally ill patients have a right to end their lives with the aid of a physician. A unanimous court, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said no, upholding state bans in New York and Washington. It wasn’t a surprising decision, since the Rehnquist Court has long been reluctant to read new rights into the Constitution. Yet even though the court said there was no history or tradition of assisted suicide in America, Rehnquist suggested the issue was best left to the state legislatures to decide one way or the other - that is, if a state wants to legalize the practice, it may be able to. ““Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society,’’ he wrote.
The debate certainly isn’t going away. In fact, shortly after the decision was handed down last week, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who pushed the subject to the national agenda, apparently assisted in the suicide of a 40-year-old woman. It was at least his 50th death. And many other doctors clandestinely assist in their patients’ suicides.
Still, opponents of assisted suicide will have the upper hand in their state legislatures. More than 40 states ban the practice, and, strengthened by the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, they aren’t likely to alter that stand any time soon. At most, some legislatures may explicitly allow doctors to administer heavy doses of sedatives until death comes - a fairly common procedure in desperate cases that the court hinted it may endorse. The court’s decision could also hurt right-to-die supporters in a critical Oregon referendum set for November. A defeat there could undermine support in states like Florida, which are more favorably disposed toward assisted suicide.
The court also took the opportunity to chide Congress for overreaching on gun control. In a 5-4 decision, it struck down a key portion of the Brady law, overturning the requirement that local police run background checks on prospective handgun buyers. (The ruling left intact a five-day waiting period before someone can buy a gun.) Making the case for states’ rights, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, ““Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sov- ereignty.’’ In other words, Washington should butt out. Justice John Paul Stevens, taking the unusual step of reading his dissent, argued that the court should defer to Congress if lawmakers believe that a statute ““will benefit the people of the nation.''
The ruling was important in sending a clear constitutional warning to Congress, but the White House hoped it would have little practical effect: 27 states already have similar laws in place, and the decision won’t affect those requirements. Meanwhile, President Clinton urged local law- enforcement officials to voluntarily run background checks on gun purchasers in every state until a national system for instant checks is operating, probably by November 1998.
The court clearly relished instructing Congress on the Constitution. ““The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the judiciary,’’ wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. The message was clear: Congress shouldn’t forget its civics lessons.
