Brief for the Petitioners Gonzales v. State of Oregon*

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the court of appeals is reported at 368 E3d 1118. The order of the district court granting respondents' motion for summary judgment is reported at 192 E Supp. 2d 1077.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The court of appeals acknowledged that the Controlled Substances

Act prohibits practitioners from prescribing or dispensing controlled substances except for a "legitimate medical purpose" and "in the usual course of professional treatment." Pet. App. 5a (quoting 21 C.ER. 1306.04). Respondents nonetheless seek to overturn the Attorney Generals determination that the prescription of controlled substances, not for ordinary treatment, but for the express purpose of ending an individual's life, does not constitute a legitimate medical purpose or treatment under federal law. Respondents essentially submit that the Attorney General's interpretation of federal law would frustrate the purposes of a state-law voter initiative, and so the federal law must yield. Thus, the issue presented in this case is "who gets to decide," id. at 9a, whether a practitioner's conduct comports with this requirement of federal law-the Attorney General, pursuant to a uniform national standard, or each of the 50 States, according to 50 different views regarding the proper use of controlled substances. The text and structure of the CSA, as well as general principles of federalism, make clear that the Attorney General's interpretation of federal law need not yield to Oregon's contrary policy choices.