From the Desk of Matthew P. Vallière

Sept. 24, 2026

Yesterday, I was honored to represent the plaintiffs in our lawsuit against the state of Delaware at a hearing at the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals in Newark, New Jersey. Chief Judge Michael Chargares, Judge Paul Matey, and Judge Emil Bove composed the panel. Our appellate counsel across all the cases, Ernest Galvan from Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld law firm, delivered our oral arguments, with Theodore Kittila, our local counsel, attending as ground support. 

Why does it Matter? We filed this case before Delaware’s law went into effect. The lower court judge denied our motion for a temporary restraining order, which would have stayed implementation of the law, but also summarily dismissed our case on standing and went further by opining on the merits of the case as well, that we fail to state a claim. This hearing was a pivotal moment in the case for our panel of judges to really suss out the arguments in our appeal and give us the opportunity to prove our case.

What happened? The hearing focused primarily on standing, that is whether Sean Curren, the individual plaintiff in the case, and members of the organizational plaintiffs have been harmed by Delaware’s assisted suicide law. You cannot take a case unless you can show concrete and particularized harm. Mr. Galvan fielded the judges’ questions with the great skill and expansive knowledge of case law of a seasoned litigator and, from my layman’s perspective, put us in the best opportunity for a favorable outcome. 

The judges then turned to the attorney for the State, who started by trying to claim that we are not talking about suicide here, because the statute says so. Judge Matey cut her short before she finished her first sentence, chiding her for trying to use double speak. This practice is doctors helping their patients to kill themselves. That’s suicide. Fair enough, Judge! The judges pounded away with questions that really showed the weakness in the State’s argument that Mr. Curren and others like him have not and will not continue to be harmed. The State’s lawyer also got into some of the merits of the case as well. 

These judges were really grappling with the issues of the case and asked hard questions of both sides, but one thing was clear: they were not assisted suicide true believers, nor ideologically predisposed to get rid of us, and that gives me hope.

Where do we go from here? Worst case scenario is that judges agree with the lower court judge and dismiss the case. Best likely result is that they overturn the ruling and send us back to the lower court to argue the merits. A middle result is that they provide us the opportunity to amend the complaint and remand us back to the lower court on the standing question. We anticipate their ruling in the coming months, hopefully before year-end. 

There’s a long road ahead, but if we ultimately win this case, it would overturn the Delaware assisted suicide law and put us in position to easily take down the New Jersey law, since they are in the 3rd Circuit’s jurisdiction. It would also provide the opportunity, were we to lose in some other circuit, to appeal that loss to the Supreme Court. 

Let’s all hope for the best as we keep up the fight in our communities, state houses, and the courts. Onward and upward!

In Solidarity,