A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of Illinois’ new medical aid-in-dying law against Catholic healthcare providers, siding with a lawsuit from Cardinal Blase Cupich a day after a different judge refused to block the law entirely in a separate case.

The Friday ruling from U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama temporarily restrains state officials from enforcing the End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act — which went into effect on Saturday — against certain healthcare professionals.

The order bars the state’s Public Health Department and Department of Financial and Professional Regulation from taking action against plaintiffs, including clergy and some pharmacy workers, “and those providing care on their premises, and Catholic health care entities” under Cupich’s authority, according to court records. The ruling doesn’t extend to healthcare providers outside that group, and the law remains in effect for all other Illinoisans.

Cupich’s lawsuit, which alleges violations of the First Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Affordable Care Act and other legal provisions, will continue through the courts. In a statement, Cupich welcomed the ruling, saying it would — for now — protect healthcare providers “against their conscience” from being compelled to inform patients of “their ‘right’ to kill themselves,” and also prevent the providers from helping them qualify for lethal drugs, or pass them along to someone willing to help them obtain those drugs, as part of what he called facilitating “suicide.”

“These obligations violate core constitutional protections of freedom of speech and religion. The law with these provisions must be struck down permanently,” Cupich said. “To be clear, the Church’s objection to this statute is not an attempt to impose Catholic teaching on non-Catholics; it is an effort to stop the State from compelling Catholic health care providers to violate their conscience.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, one of the proponents of the new law, stuck to its staunch defense of the measure.

“While we support religious liberty, we strongly believe that the religious views of individual health care workers or institutions should not be a tool for denying access to health care — including end-of-life options — for those seeking that care,” Khadine Bennett, the group’s advocacy and intergovernmental affairs director, said in a statement.

Other legal challenges have targeted the medical-aid-in-dying law, which Gov. JB Pritzker approved at the end of last year. For instance, Valderrama’s ruling came one day after another federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois denied efforts by plaintiffs in a different lawsuit filed in June to block the law from taking effect.

That suit, similar to the legal challenge from Cupich and others, alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Affordable Care Act. The suit, which was filed by disability rights advocates, also alleges equal protection violations under the 14th Amendment. Plaintiffs in that suit now have less than 30 days to show why the rest of the suit shouldn’t be dismissed as well.

Illinois joined at least 10 other states and Washington, D.C., in permitting medical aid in dying, a measure Pritzker said would help terminally ill patients “avoid unnecessary pain and suffering at the end of their lives.” Opponents call the law immoral because it lets patients choose to end their lives.

Under the law, patients who have been given up to six months to live by a doctor, are Illinois residents and are at least 18 years old “may orally request a prescription for medication” from their attending physician, and it must be documented. The patient must also request the medication in writing to their physician after making the oral request. But the patient must also make a second oral request five days after the initial one.

The written request for the medication must also be witnessed by two people who believe the patient is mentally sound and acting voluntarily, according to the law, which also limits who can act as witnesses.

When the patient makes the second oral request, the attending physician must offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the request and “provide sufficient information to a patient regarding all appropriate end-of-life care options,” including comfort care, hospice care, palliative care and pain control, as well as the foreseeable risks and benefits of each.

_____

©2026 Chicago Tribune. Visit chicagotribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.