The court will side with states.
Pozen ‘9 [Jessica Bulman and Heather Gerken; 2009; Professor of Law at Columbia University, J.D. from Yale Law School; Professor of Law at Yale University, J.D. from the University of Michigan, A.B. from Princeton University; The Yale Law Journal, “Uncooperative Federalism,” vol. 118]
In 2001, pursuant to the CSA, Attorney General John Ashcroft promulgated an Interpretive Rule that would have prohibited doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, despite an Oregon law that permits the practice. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court sustained a challenge to the Interpretive Rule, in part because it trampled on state power. 66 The Court spoke the language of dual sovereignty, noting that "the structure and limitations of federalism" allow the states "'great latitude under their police powers"' and that, respecting this, the CSA "manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally."' 6' But while the Court spoke in the cadence of sovereignty, the logic of its decision turned on the level of integration between state and federal enforcement. As the Court stated, "The structure and operation of the CSA presume and rely upon a functioning medical profession regulated under the States' police powers."' ' 68 Because of this reliance, the states were permitted to regulate despite a comprehensive federal law.