A New Jersey law that permits terminally ill people to seek life-ending drugs applies only to residents of the state and not those from beyond its borders, a federal appeals court ruled.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments challenging New Jersey’s residency requirement while acknowledging how fraught end-of-life decisions can be. The court noted that not all states have adopted the same approach.

“Death brings good things to an end, but rarely neatly,” U.S. Circuit Court Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote in the Friday opinion. “Many terminally ill patients face a grim reality: imminent, painful death. Some may want to avert that suffering by enlisting a doctor’s help to end their own lives. New Jersey lets its residents make that choice—but only its residents.”

In addition to New Jersey, the District of Columbia and 10 other states permit assisted suicide in terminal cases. The majority of states limit the option to its residents. Oregon and Vermont authorize it for everyone.

The case was initiated by a woman from Delaware suffering from stage 4 lymphoma who sought the option of doctor-assisted suicide, yet she passed away before the arguments were heard. Delaware plans to implement its own assisted suicide law on January 1.

A New Jersey doctor also participated in the challenge against the law along with other plaintiffs who could not complete the appeal due to death before their case was resolved. Messages seeking comments from the plaintiffs’ attorneys regarding future steps were left unanswered.

New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed the legislation in 2019, recognizing differing views on end-of-life decisions shaped by personal beliefs, but emphasizing individual choice.

The law lays out strict requirements: two doctors must confirm the request, and the applicant must be an adult resident with a prognosis of six months or less to live. It mandates that patients request the medication two times, with the opportunity to revoke their decision.

In the ruling, the court maintained that the assisted suicide option does not qualify as a fundamental right that states must provide to non-residents, reiterating states' authority to shape their policies regarding such significant matters.