My practice is focused on appellate litigation in state and federal courts. I handle a variety of cases, some involving issues important only to the litigants, others raising issues of broad public concern, in which the social questions of the day confront the law, creating legal and political tension.

I am currently, or have recently, litigated appeals in the following jurisdictions:

• United States Supreme Court
• United States Department of Defense
• Oregon Supreme Court
• Oregon Court of Appeals
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
• Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
• Third Circuit Court of Appeals
• Florida Court of Appeals

My work is in various stages of completion. Decisions come periodically. The most recent decision is from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of US v. Chube (116 KB), ___ F3d ___, decided August 15, 2008. This opinion is a big victory for any physician practicing anywhere in the United States defending against Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) inquiries, investigations, or prosecutions because this opinion best illustrates the differences between the civil standard of care and the criminal conviction standard and the harm that will follow when these two distinctly different standards are conflated. But more importantly, this opinion is a huge victory for my clients, Drs. David and Randall Chube of Indiana, because it vacates their 15- and five-year sentences.

Another recent decision from the Oregon Supreme Court in the case of Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber (3.51 MB), decided October 19, 2006. In this decision, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in favor of my clients, the sponsors of Ballot Measure 3-2000. With this victory fresh in hand, Ballot Measure 3-2000 is the only constitutional amendment from the 2000 election that is still in effect after legal challenges. Ballot Measure 3-2000 is also one of the very few constitutional amendments to survive a separate-vote challenge in recent Oregon history.

Another recent decision is from the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon (406 KB), decided January 17, 2006. In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion (263 KB), which had earlier upheld the federal District Court's opinion (1.78 MB) enjoining former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft from prosecuting Oregon physicians and pharmacists.

In this case, I sued John Ashcroft and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (see Complaint (1.24 MB)) in federal District Court on behalf of a physician and a pharmacist who were threatened with federal criminal prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment. The Attorney General lost at all three levels--in the trial court, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling is an important victory for physicians, pharmacists, and patients everywhere, because it establishes the precedent that the Attorney General may not define the scope of legitimate medical practice, and that the States, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority of the Court, concluded his 28 page opinion writing:

The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.

Gonzales v. Oregon (406 KB)(Kennedy, J.)

Another important decision is Lillian Jane DiAmico v. Robert Ellinwood, III (1.1 MB), decided December 13, 2006. In this 3-0 decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court (trial court), in favor of my client, a seven-year-old girl. This case is an important victory for children throughout Oregon because it preserves the statutory process intended by the Legislative Assembly to establish paternity against the types of defenses raised by Mr. Ellinwood against Lillian in the trial court.

Still another important decision is O'Donnell-Lamont & Lamont (260 KB), decided June 10, 2004. In this unanimous decision, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in favor of my clients. This case is an important victory for children throughout Oregon because it establishes the new legal precedent to be applied in future third-party child custody disputes. I currently have five other active domestic relations appeals involving custody, support, adoption and property settlements.

As you will see from the case highlights section, the common thread connecting an otherwise disparate case load is that my clients' cases often have widespread impact, and their needs often require extraordinary solutions.

I prefer appellate litigation because it affords the opportunity to shape the law at the state and federal levels, occasionally having a real impact on our lives.

While my practice is focused on appellate litigation, in those cases in which the trial courts have become the battleground of social reform, I also practice in state and federal trial courts.

And when litigation is inadequate, I have designed and implemented successful legislative and political solutions.

Please call if you would like to learn more about my practice.

Eli D. Stutsman