A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to receive experimental drugs not approved by regulators, reversing a May 2006 ruling by a divided three-judge appeals panel, which actually overturned a 2004 district court decision to discard the case.

The judges making up the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 8-2 against the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs and the Washington Legal Foundation, but the two advocacy groups have said they plan to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

The two dissenting judges of the Appeals Court were Judge Judith W. Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee. The Court was presided over by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush appointee, who cited a Supreme Court decision that rejected the notion of a constitutional right to die, among other arguments.

The ruling is a victory for the Food and Drug Administration, which announced it was pleased with the decision. The DC ruling allegedly upheld the FDA's "role in facilitating appropriate treatment access to investigational therapies while at the same time protecting the public at large by requiring that drugs are proven to be safe and effective before they may be marketed to U.S. consumers," according to a statement issued by its spokeswoman, Julie Zawisza.

The FDA also argued that it issues special approvals, on a limited basis, for terminally ill patients and their doctors which allow the use of newly developed, not-yet-approved, drugs.