Appeals court upholds New Jersey's assisted suicide residency rule

A federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit last week challenging a New Jersey law that prohibits non-residents from accessing assisted suicide in the state.

Key Takeaways:

• The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a New Jersey law stating that assisted suicide is available only for the state's residents.

• The law had been challenged by plaintiffs from out-of-state, who wanted to travel to New Jersey to access assisted suicide.

• The three-judge panel ruled that assisted suicide is not a fundamental privilege, and should not be treated as a right.

The Backstory:

In 2019, New Jersey lawmakers legalized assisted suicide. One of the "safeguards" attached to the law was the stipulation that only state residents would be eligible to access assisted death.

In 2023, Delaware resident Judith Govatos, Philadelphia resident Andrea Sealy, and two New Jersey doctors sued New Jersey officials over that stipulation, arguing that non-residents should be able to cross state lines to commit state-sanctioned suicide.

Study: Assisted suicide can be painful, prolonged and inhumane

In September 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Renée Marie Bumb ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that New Jersey was well within its rights to reject assisted suicide tourism. The plaintiffs then appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Details:

On December 5, the three-judge panel on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no fundamental right to assisted suicide, and therefore the plaintiffs cannot compel New Jersey to allow it for non-citizens. The judges noted that varying state laws could result in a number of legal ramifications were suicide tourism allowed.

“A prescription lawful in Camden can be evidence of a felony in Philadelphia,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the panel. “If a New Jersey doctor prescribes a Pennsylvanian lethal pills and she swallows them back in Pennsylvania, the doctor might reasonably fear prosecution.”

The panel also noted that the New Jersey law protects some vulnerable patients (though vulnerable people living within New Jersey are still at risk of assisted suicide's many abuses).

“New Jersey has sound reasons to limit this grave choice to its own residents,” Bibas wrote. “Protecting vulnerable patients and their doctors (not to mention avoiding friction with other states) justifies the residency requirement under any applicable test.”

New Jersey doctor Paul Bryman remains the only plaintiff in the case, as both Govatos and Sealy have died, and the second doctor named in the suit has retired.

“I am deeply disappointed by today’s ruling,” Bryman said in a statement following the court's decision. “Terminal patients outside New Jersey should have the option of medical aid in dying without having to travel long distances.”

The Bottom Line:

Matt Vallière, Executive Director of Patients Rights Action Fund, agreed that the ruling will protect millions of vulnerable people.

“Big win today for vulnerable people in states where they are protected from the dangers and discrimination inherent to assisted suicide laws," he said. "The court, in ruling to maintain the New Jersey assisted suicide residency requirement, protects millions who live out of state from deadly harm.”