Montanans Against Assisted Suicide v. Board of Medical Examiners
2015 MT 112
Mont.2015Background
- In Baxter v. State, this Court held that a terminally ill patient’s consent can be a statutory defense to homicide for physicians who provide aid in dying. 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211.
- The Board of Medical Examiners (Board) adopted "Position Statement No. 20" interpreting Baxter and explaining the Board's discipline policy for physicians involved in aid-in-dying.
- Montanans Against Assisted Suicide (MAAS), opposing assisted suicide, petitioned the Board to vacate the Position Statement; the Board denied the petition after a hearing.
- MAAS sought judicial review in the First Judicial District Court, asking for a declaratory judgment that the Position Statement was invalid and for an order vacating it and removing it from the Board's website.
- While the district-court action was pending, the Board rescinded all of its position statements (including No. 20) and removed them from its website; the Board moved to dismiss the case as moot and the district court granted dismissal.
- MAAS appealed; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the case was moot and none of MAAS's mootness exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in dismissing MAAS's petition as moot | MAAS: Rescission did not moot the case; Court should decide validity of Position Statement and/or revisit Baxter; public‑interest and voluntary‑cessation exceptions apply | Board: Rescission removed the only relief sought; any ruling would be advisory and therefore non‑justiciable | Affirmed: Case moot because Board rescinded the Position Statement and no effective relief remained; exceptions to mootness did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Baxter v. State, 354 Mont. 234, 224 P.3d 1211 (Mont. 2009) (held patient consent can be a statutory defense to homicide for physician aid in dying)
- Plan Helena, Inc. v. Helena Reg'l Airport Auth. Bd., 355 Mont. 142, 226 P.3d 567 (Mont. 2010) (describing limits on judicial power and prohibition on advisory opinions)
- Clark v. Roosevelt Cnty., 336 Mont. 118, 154 P.3d 48 (Mont. 2007) (mootness where defendant returned property, leaving no effective relief)
- Havre Daily News, LLC v. City of Havre, 333 Mont. 331, 142 P.3d 864 (Mont. 2006) (voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied only when reasonable evidence shows likelihood of recurrence)
- State v. Whitehorn, 309 Mont. 63, 50 P.3d 121 (Mont. 2002) (court of appeals and lower courts cannot overrule precedent)