California voters passed Proposition in , allowing qualified patients to cultivate and use marijuana for designated medical illnesses. Gonzales v. Raich. Media. Oral Argument – November 29, ; Opinion Announcement – June 06, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. On June 6, , the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal Controlled Substances . The dissenters attacked the Majority opinion as a complete departure from the.

Author: Mezirisar Akikasa
Country: Syria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 7 April 2007
Pages: 488
PDF File Size: 13.40 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.65 Mb
ISBN: 782-7-26473-424-6
Downloads: 57827
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yozshugrel

For example, respondent Raich attests that she uses 2. Title II of that Act, the CSA, repealed most of the earlier antidrug laws in favor of a comprehensive regime to combat the international and interstate traffic in illicit drugs.

While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety.

DEA15 F. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 17— Justice O’Connor concluded her dissent with the following: Anteat 15—16; LopezU. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Lopezsupraat —; see also Morrisonsupraat — Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.

The first two categories are self-evident, since they are the ingredients of interstate commerce itself. WirtzU. In Gonzzleswe had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions.


This Court has regularly entertained as-applied challenges under constitutional provisions, see United States v. This section gomzales not cite any sources. These bare declarations cannot be compared to the record before the Court in Wickard. Alberto GonzalesAttorney General, et al. She was allergic to most conventional types of prescription drugs.

The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, U.S. 1 () | Canna Law Blog™

The government also contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption.

Congress opiniom ban the use of cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes. This class of intrastate users is therefore distinguishable from others.

Raich and its implications.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

It will not do to say that Congress may regulate noncommercial activity simply because it may have an effect on the demand for commercial goods, or because the noncommercial endeavor can, in some sense, substitute for commercial activity. The dissent points to a federal law, 18 U. The Government does cite one estimate that there were overCompassionate Use Act users in California inReply Brief for Petitioners 16, but does not explain, in terms of proportions, what their presence means for the national illicit drug market.

The breadth of legislation that Congress enacts says nothing about whether the intrastate activity substantially affects interstate commerce, let alone whether it is necessary to the scheme. See PerezU.


In part because of the low incidence of medical marijuana use, many law enforcement officials report v.raixh the introduction of gonza,es marijuana laws has not affected their law enforcement efforts. To effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA. In the first case, U. Raich previously Ashcroft v. Please review our privacy policy.

That is not enough to render federal regulation an inappropriate means. So long as Congress casts its net broadly over an interstate market, according to the majority, it is free to regulate interstate and intrastate opihion alike. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Those two cases, of course, are LopezU. Yet Congress is free to make decisions for reasons other than those embodied in science and evidence, and regularly does so.

After reviewing in detail the picture of the industry provided in that summary, the Court explained that consumption of homegrown wheat gonzals the most variable factor in the size of the national wheat crop, and that on-site consumption could have the effect gohzales varying the amount of wheat sent to market by as much as 20 percent.