A federal judge on Friday asked those challenging a provision of Colorado’s aid-in-dying law to reconsider whether they want to continue litigating, after a key plaintiff died earlier this month.

This year, three people alleged Colorado’s assisted suicide law, which voters enacted in 2016, violated multiple constitutional provisions with its requirement that beneficiaries be residents of the state. The plaintiffs included Jeff McComas of Minnesota, who had a terminal cancer diagnosis, along with Colorado doctors Barbara Morris and Jennifer Harbert.

In early September, several of the defendants filed letters with U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson indicating they intended to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. However, shortly afterward, the plaintiffs notified Jackson that McComas died on Sept. 8.

In a Sept. 19 order, Jackson observed the remaining two plaintiffs were doctors who appeared not to have any non-resident patients currently wishing to use Colorado’s aid-in-dying procedure. It was possible, therefore, that Morris and Harbert lacked standing to sue on their own.

“At this time,” Jackson wrote, “the Court wonders if this is the best case to challenge the Colorado statute. Please give this more thought and conferral, as the Court does not wish for the parties to waste their time and resources, or the Court’s, if there is no standing.”

Colorado’s law applies to terminally ill patients who have six months or fewer to live and request to self-administer aid-in-dying medication. Among other things, they must be able to communicate an informed decision, have their prognosis confirmed by two physicians and be a Colorado resident.

The lawsuit described McComas as a 55-year-old retired engineer with stage IV intestinal cancer. He was expected to die by February 2026. McComas wished to travel to Colorado to receive medical aid-in-dying, as Minnesota does not permit the practice. Establishing residency in Colorado, his lawyers wrote, was not practical.

“Mr. McComas will eventually be unable to process food and liquids, causing significant pain. Instead of suffering such an unbearable decline, Mr. McComas wishes to have the option to use medical aid in dying to secure a peaceful death in a comfortable place with his family,” wrote the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

McComas, along with Morris and Harbert, alleged that the residency requirement violates the privileges and immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on the right to interstate travel based on a person’s residency. They also alleged violations of the commerce clause and equal protection clause, asserting discriminatory residency-based treatment.

On Sept. 4, Alexis King, the district attorney for Jefferson County where Morris lives, submitted a letter to Jackson — as he requires notification prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss. King, who is one of the named defendants, indicated she would seek to dismiss the claims because she had no enforcement role under the aid-in-dying law. Further there is “no constitutional right to medical aid in dying.”

Days later, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office submitted a similar letter for the governor, attorney general and other state-level defendants named in the suit. They noted the residency requirement protects Colorado physicians from criminal liability in other states, making the restriction constitutionally justifiable.

Then, the plaintiffs notified Jackson of McComas’ death.

In his brief order, Jackson noted the only remaining parties were doctors who “do not presently have, but might in the future have, a non-resident patient who wishes to utilize” the aid-in-dying law.

He added that he would consider any motion to dismiss on the merits, but suggested the plaintiffs reevaluate whether they want to press ahead. As of Monday, the parties had not yet responded to Jackson.

The case is McComas et al. v. Polis et al.