Difference between revisions of "Gonzales v. Oregon"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a 6-3 decision limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with local medical issues. Specifically, that case concerned a ru...) |
(added citations) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the [federal law] show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it. | :The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the [federal law] show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it. | ||
| − | Since that decision and as of 2007, Justice Alito has replaced Justice O'Connor the Court. | + | Since that decision and as of 2007, Justice Alito has replaced Justice O'Connor the Court. |
| + | |||
| + | == Subsequent Decisions Relying on Gonzales v. Oregon == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ''Walker v. Eggleston'', 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60958 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006) | ||
| + | * ''Bonds v. Tandy'', 457 F.3d 409, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121 (5th Cir. Miss. 2006) | ||
| + | * ''Toomer v. City Cab'', 443 F.3d 1191, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8079, 12 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P12-124, 17 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1360 (10th Cir. Utah 2006) | ||
| + | * ''Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs'', 464 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85132, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 319, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20236 (M.D. Fla. 2006) | ||
== Reference == | == Reference == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 19:51, May 28, 2007
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a 6-3 decision limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with local medical issues. Specifically, that case concerned a rule by the United States Attorney General John Ashcroft to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, despite an Oregon law allowing this.
The decision established that states, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine:[1]
- The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the [federal law] show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.
Since that decision and as of 2007, Justice Alito has replaced Justice O'Connor the Court.
Subsequent Decisions Relying on Gonzales v. Oregon
- Walker v. Eggleston, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60958 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006)
- Bonds v. Tandy, 457 F.3d 409, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121 (5th Cir. Miss. 2006)
- Toomer v. City Cab, 443 F.3d 1191, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8079, 12 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P12-124, 17 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1360 (10th Cir. Utah 2006)
- Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 464 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85132, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 319, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20236 (M.D. Fla. 2006)
Reference
- ↑ Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. at 275