PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 17 - Just 30 terminally ill people exercise a right each year that is unique in America to the state of Oregon, hastening their deaths with a lethal dose of drugs prescribed by doctors.

The Supreme Court decision on Tuesday rejecting the Justice Department's effort to block the state's Death With Dignity Act will allow such suicides to continue, but it may not have the broad impact people on both sides of the debate are predicting.

There is no reason to think that the pace of physician-assisted suicides will quicken in Oregon. And the decision lends little support, one way or the other, to the efforts to enact similar laws around the country that have stalled since the Oregon law was enacted in 1994.

The Supreme Court's ruling was, in fact, notably focused and technical. It did not address whether there is a constitutional right to die. It did not say that Congress was powerless to override state laws that allow doctors to help their patients end their lives.

It said only that a particular federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, which is mainly concerned with drug abuse and illegal drug trafficking, had not given John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, the authority to punish Oregon doctors who complied with requests under the state's law. The law allows mentally competent, terminally ill patients to ask their doctors for lethal drugs.

"What the court decision means is simply that you won't have federal agents trying to put an end to this in the state of Oregon," said Dr. Timothy E. Quill, a professor of medicine and psychiatry at the University of Rochester, who is a prominent supporter of physician-assisted suicide. "We were very fearful of what might have happened had the ruling gone the other way."

Here in Oregon, the issue was initially contentious, passed by a bare margin in 1994. But the more that people outside the state criticized the law, the more support it gained here. When it came up for a second referendum in 1997, it was upheld 60 to 40.

"I would not expect to see an increase in doctor-assisted suicides here," said Mary Williams, Oregon's solicitor general. "But I do expect more states will at least have discussion now."

But states have been free to enact such laws, and they have not followed Oregon's example. Mr. Ashcroft did not issue his interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act until 2001, and it was soon enjoined. The federal government lost in the courts every step of the way.

One question now is whether the debate will move from the court to Congress. Peg Sandeen, executive director of the Death With Dignity National Center in Portland, said her group would move to push legislation or voter initiatives in several states.

But Ms. Sandeen said the organization was concerned that "a Congress that would intervene in the death of Terri Schiavo" might be galvanized into action by this decision.

Still, Tuesday's decision may prompt lawmakers in some states to give the matter a fresh look.

"This decision gives the green light to the rest of the nation to move forward with assisted-suicide laws," said Mathew D. Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, which filed a brief supporting the federal government in the Oregon case. "This particular case was either going to close the door or to open it, and it opened it."

In the handful of states where a similar measure has been under consideration, supporters said they hoped the decision would help.

"This will be a tremendous momentum builder for Vermont and other states who want to bring compassionate care to end-of-life issues," said Dr. David Babbott, a board member of Death With Dignity Vermont.

Opponents of assisted suicide said Tuesday's decision was a narrow and technical one that did not endorse any particular approach to these issues.

"I don't think its impact will be great," Dr. Robert D. Orr, the president of the Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare, said of the decision. "Some have misunderstood the Oregon case as a challenge to the Oregon statute itself."

The Oregon law was initially held up by an injunction, and not fully put into effect until 1998. Since then, through 2004, a total of 208 people have taken their lives by lethal injection with a physician-prescribed drug, usually a barbiturate.

Critics had said Oregon would become a suicide center, with people flying in to end their lives. They also predicted that the law would be unfairly used against uneducated people or those without health insurance or adequate medical choices.

In the seven full years since the law has been in effect and records have been kept, more than 60 percent of those who have killed themselves have had some college education, the state reported.

Nora Miller, whose husband, Rick, took his life here in Portland in 1999 after he was given less than six months to live with a diagnosis of terminal lung cancer, said the Oregon law allowed for a peaceful and relatively pain-free end to his life.

"He was worried about being unconscious and completely out of it," said Ms. Miller, whose husband was 52. "But it was as good a death as he could have hoped for."

She praised the court decision as a backing of individual liberty.

"This country was founded on the idea that you should be able to make these kinds of decisions without government interference," Ms. Miller said.

But the leader of a group of Oregon physicians who have long opposed the measure, Dr. Kenneth Stevens, said the medical community had long had ways to help people deal with pain at the end of their lives.

"I've been taking care of cancer patients for more than 30 years," Dr. Stevens said, "and I feel helping people kill themselves is not something doctors should be doing."

Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon said one effect of the decision would be to allow innovative states like Oregon to continue to be laboratories for new ideas.

"The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the delicate balance between our federal system and the right of the states to be the crucibles for new ideas and new ways to meet the changing needs of their citizens," Mr. Kulongoski said.

Timothy Egan reported from Portland for this article, and Adam Liptak from New York.