The bill amends section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to add a new categorical prohibition: the D.C. Council may not pass any law, regulation, or guidance that permits euthanasia or assisted suicide as defined by the referenced federal statute.
It does this by inserting a new paragraph into the Home Rule Act that incorporates the scope of activities covered by section 3(a) of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14402), and by expressly repealing the District’s Death With Dignity Act of 2016.
For professionals tracking local health law and federal–local relations, the bill is notable because it eliminates a standing D.C. medical-aid-in-dying regime and replaces local discretion with a federal bar tied to a 1997 funding restriction. That combination creates immediate legal, regulatory, and operational questions for patients, health systems, the D.C.
Council, and the city agencies that implemented the 2016 law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new paragraph into the Home Rule Act that prevents the D.C. Council from enacting any law, rule, or guidance permitting activities covered by 42 U.S.C. 14402(a), and it repeals the District’s Death With Dignity Act (D.C. Code sec. 7–661.01 et seq.).
Who It Affects
Directly affects the D.C. Council’s legislative authority, the Department of Health and local regulators, clinicians who participated under the 2016 law, and District residents who sought or planned to use medical aid-in-dying. It also matters to advocacy and faith groups engaged on end-of-life policy.
Why It Matters
The measure replaces a locally created medical-aid-in-dying framework with a federal prohibition tied to prior federal statute, narrowing D.C.’s autonomy on an intimate health-care policy and forcing immediate regulatory and legal adjustments in the District.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates in two moves. First, it alters the District of Columbia Home Rule Act—specifically section 602(a)—to add a new, explicit bar on the Council’s ability to authorize euthanasia or assisted suicide.
Instead of defining assisted suicide within the Home Rule Act itself, the amendment ties the ban to the scope of activities covered by section 3(a) of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14402), while telling interpreters to consider subsection (b) of that federal provision. That cross-reference imports the federal statute’s coverage into the question of what local laws the Council may not enact.
Second, the bill repeals the District’s Death With Dignity Act of 2016 (codified at D.C. Code sec. 7–661.01 et seq.).
Repeal removes the local statutory framework that previously authorized medical aid-in-dying in the District, along with any statutory processes and legal protections that statute created for patients, physicians, and pharmacies.Because the bill neither creates transition rules nor spells out enforcement mechanisms, its practical effect would be immediate but administratively incomplete: local regulations and guidance adopted under the 2016 law would no longer have a statutory basis, and clinicians who relied on the District statute would face legal uncertainty. The cross-reference to the 1997 federal funding statute also invites interpretive questions about whether the ban covers authorization, provision, counseling, procurement of drugs, recordkeeping waivers, or only activities directly described in that federal provision.Finally, the measure leverages Congress’s unique authority over the District to preempt a local policy choice on a value-laden health issue.
That dynamic raises predictable friction points around home rule, potential litigation over scope and retroactivity, and the operational task of unwinding local rules (licenses, forms, reporting) built around the now-repealed 2016 statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act by adding a new paragraph (numbered as paragraph (11) in the text) that bars the Council from enacting laws to permit euthanasia or assisted suicide.
The prohibition references activities covered by section 3(a) of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14402) and instructs interpreters to consider subsection (b) of that federal provision when determining scope.
It repeals the Death With Dignity Act of 2016 (D.C. Code sec. 7–661.01 et seq.), removing the District’s existing statutory authorization and regulatory framework for medical aid-in-dying.
The bill contains no separate enforcement clause, penalty schedule, or transitional rules for actions previously lawful under the 2016 statute; it effects change by amending home-rule authority and by repeal.
Because the bill is an amendment to the Home Rule Act, it operates through Congress’s constitutional authority over the District rather than through ordinary preemption of state law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Add prohibition to Home Rule Act (new paragraph)
This provision modifies 1–206.02(a) (the codified section 602(a)) by adding a new paragraph that explicitly prevents the D.C. Council from enacting any act, resolution, rule, regulation, guidance, or other law that would permit euthanasia or assisted suicide as framed by the referenced federal statute. The practical effect is to convert a policy question into a categorical limitation on the Council’s legislative authority: where the new paragraph reaches, local legislative action is foreclosed. Because the bill imports the scope of 42 U.S.C. 14402(a) instead of re-defining terms, interpretive disputes about what specific activities are covered will turn on federal statutory language and how courts treat the cross-reference.
Scope defined by reference to Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act
Rather than defining 'assisted suicide' or 'euthanasia' within the Home Rule Act, the bill ties the ban to a preexisting federal measure that previously focused on federal funding restrictions. That choice narrows legislative drafting here but expands interpretive complexity: agencies, courts, and litigants will need to map the federal statute’s covered activities onto the kinds of local laws the Council might have passed, for example distinguishing between permitting an assisted-prescription regime and relaxing criminal penalties for related conduct.
Repeal of the District’s Death With Dignity Act of 2016
This short clause strips the D.C. Code of the 2016 statute that established medical-aid-in-dying procedures in the District. Repeal removes any statutory authorization, reporting requirements, immunity provisions, and implementation deadlines that the 2016 law created. The absence of transitional provisions means existing regulations, forms, and institutional practices created under the repealed statute will lack their statutory underpinning, producing immediate compliance and legal-risk questions for providers and the Department of Health.
No enforcement or transition mechanics included
The bill contains no separate enforcement mechanism, criminal penalties, or explicit effective date language. Because it accomplishes the policy shift by amending the Home Rule Act and repealing the local statute, enforcement relies on existing criminal and civil laws where applicable and on the judicial process for resolving disputes. The omission leaves open practical questions about prosecutions for past-authorized acts, unwinding of administrative rules, and how licensing and patient records are handled after repeal.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Opponents of assisted dying and allied advocacy groups: The bill secures a federal prohibition on local legalization, aligning District policy with their position and removing a local legal pathway for medical aid-in-dying.
- Clinicians and institutions who object on conscience grounds: Providers who declined to participate under the 2016 law gain legal clarity that the District will not authorize assisted-dying practices, reducing the risk of local mandates or expectations to participate.
- Organizations that litigate on behalf of anti-assisted-suicide positions: The measure creates a statutory basis for defending the ban and pursuing compliance or enforcement actions consistent with the federal reference.
Who Bears the Cost
- Patients seeking medical aid-in-dying in D.C.: Individuals who planned to use or rely on the 2016 statute lose a local legal pathway to access assisted-dying services and may need to travel or pursue alternative options.
- D.C. Council and local regulators: The bill limits the Council’s policymaking authority and forces the Department of Health to halt or unwind regulatory programs, guidance, and reporting systems tied to the repealed statute.
- Healthcare providers and pharmacies that implemented the 2016 law: Institutions that developed protocols, consent forms, or supply chains for medication used in medical aid-in-dying face compliance and liability uncertainty once the statutory authorization disappears.
- Advocacy groups and counsel who must litigate gray areas: Both proponents and opponents may incur litigation costs to resolve interpretive questions (scope, retroactivity, enforcement) created by the bill’s drafting choices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is legal authority versus local self-determination: Congress can exercise its constitutional power over the District to impose a uniform prohibition, but doing so overrides a locally adopted framework that reflected a different policy judgment about patient autonomy and end-of-life care; resolving that conflict requires weighing national interests in a consistent legal approach against the District’s interest in making sensitive health-policy choices for its residents.
Two technical choices in the bill drive most downstream complications. First, the drafters avoid a standalone definition of 'assisted suicide' and instead incorporate the coverage of a 1997 federal funding statute.
That makes the ban easy to insert into the Home Rule Act, but it shifts interpretive work to courts and agencies: lawyers will litigate whether the reference captures only activities explicitly tied to federal funding restrictions or whether it reaches broader conduct such as clinical protocols, prescription practices, counseling, or recordkeeping. The cross-reference to subsection (b) of 42 U.S.C. 14402 further complicates matters because subsection (b) may limit or qualify subsection (a) in ways that are not spelled out here.
Second, repeal of the District’s Death With Dignity Act without transition rules creates immediate administrative burdens. The Department of Health, hospitals, and pharmacies implemented processes and forms under the 2016 law; removing the statute does not by itself tell agencies what to do with pending requests, active protocols, or data collected under the old regime.
The absence of explicit enforcement language also leaves unclear whether conduct that was lawful under the 2016 statute could expose providers to criminal or civil liability after repeal, whether authors of prior prescriptions face retroactive risk, or whether the repeal applies prospectively only.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.