Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/454

 546US2

Unit: $U18

[09-04-08 12:21:03] PAGES PGT: OPIN

OCTOBER TERM, 2005

243

Syllabus

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.

OREGON et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04–623. Argued October 5, 2005—Decided January 17, 2006 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act), which was enacted in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling legiti­ mate and illegitimate trafﬁc in controlled substances, criminalizes, inter alia, the unauthorized distribution and dispensation of substances clas­ siﬁed in any of its ﬁve schedules. The Attorney General may add, re­ move, or reschedule substances only after making particular ﬁndings, and on scientiﬁc and medical matters, he must accept the ﬁndings of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). These proceed­ ings must be on the record after an opportunity for comment. The dispute here involves controlled substances listed in Schedule II, which are generally available only by written prescription, 21 U. S. C. § 829(a). A 1971 regulation promulgated by the Attorney General requires that such prescriptions be used “for a legitimate medical purpose by an indi­ vidual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional prac­ tice.” 21 CFR § 1306.04. To prevent diversion of controlled sub­ stances, the CSA regulates the activity of physicians, who must register in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Attorney General. He may deny, suspend, or revoke a registration that, as rele­ vant here, would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U. S. C. §§ 824(a)(4), 822(a)(2). In determining consistency with the public inter­ est, he must consider ﬁve factors, including the State’s recommendation, compliance with state, federal, and local law regarding controlled sub­ stances, and “public health and safety.” § 823(f). The CSA explicitly contemplates a role for the States in regulating controlled substances. See § 903. The Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA) exempts from civil or criminal liability state-licensed physicians who, in compliance with ODWDA’s speciﬁc safeguards, dispense or prescribe a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of a terminally ill patient. In 2001, the Attor­ ney General issued an Interpretive Rule to address the implementation and enforcement of the CSA with respect to ODWDA, declaring that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical practice and that dispensing or prescribing them for this purpose is unlawful under the CSA. The State, a physician, a pharmacist, and