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.
|Published (Last):||5 May 2017|
|PDF File Size:||19.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.93 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Second, at the end of his term, President Johnson fundamentally reorganized the federal drug control agencies. See United States v. As Justice Scalia recognizes, see anteat 7 opinion concurring in judgmentCongress cannot use its authority under the Clause to contravene the principle of state sovereignty embodied in the Tenth Amendment.
Raich and Monson then sued to enjoin enforcement of the CSA, arguing that, as applied to them, the CSA amounted to an unlawful exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
On December 16,the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with Raich and Monson: The relevant precedents for the Court’s analysis are Wickard v. I gonzles agree that our decision in Lopez contemplated such evasive or overbroad legislative strategies with approval. In the first case, U. The Court of Appeals in Morrison made clear that it was not. The main objectives of the CSA were to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.
If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. Finally, with respect to whether the link between the regulated activity and a substantial effect on interstate commerce is attenuated, the court expressed doubt that the interstate effect of homegrown medical marijuana is substantial.
Finally, the Court responded to the respondent’s argument that its activities are not an “essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they are both isolated and policed by goznales State of California and they are completely separate and distinct from the interstate market. Views Read Edit View history. The governments of CaliforniaMarylandand Washington also opihion briefs supporting Raich. Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.
Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Respondents also raise a substantive due process claim and seek to avail themselves of the medical necessity defense.
Gonzales V. Raich: Implications for Public Health Policy
These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. These are the people who can, at the same time, declare that MJ has no medical use Schedule Iand then sanction a medical grow facility at U of MS to supply MMJ to those enrolled in their Compassionate Relief program. This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.
Despite the failure of this claim as well as subsequent litigation and legislative efforts, Raich and Monson continue to use marijuana for private medical purposes. The federal government appealed that decision to the U.
While the Supreme Court has previously addressed issues relating to the CSA in light of California’s medical marijuana statute, it did not decide the case on Commerce Clause grounds.
V.rach O’Connor’s dissent focused on the lack of evidence indicating that medicinal marijuana users have a discernable or significant effect on the interstate market which Congress sought to regulate.
The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, U.S. 1 () | Canna Law Blog™
Topic areas Constitutional Questions. Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future.
The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. Raich, Monson, and two caregivers brought a suit to protect their right to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market.
Exercising those powers, California by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana v.raih be available to relieve severe pain and suffering.
Thus the case for the exemption comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation.
IMHO, this thinking would lead to the conclusion that everything falls under federal jurisdiction since everything, in aggregate, could impact interstate commerce to some degree. We normally presume that States enforce their own laws, Riley v.
Gonzales v. Raich: Congress’s Power Under the Commerce Clause to Regulate Medical Marijuana
gonzzles WickardU. Justice O’Connor concluded her dissent with the following: Lopez, the Court struck down the Guns-Free School Zones Act ofa federal law barring the carrying of guns near schools.
The interconnectedness of economic activity is not a modern phenomenon unfamiliar to the Framers. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative Gonzales v. These bare declarations gonazles be compared to the record before the Court in Wickard.
Having thus defined the relevant conduct, we must determine whether, under our precedents, the conduct is economic and, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. In addition, Justice Thomas filed his own dissenting opinion. Angel McClary Raich, et al. Indeed, in considering the fundamental Constitutional question raised by the Bush Administration’s decision to enforce the CSA in medical marijuana situations, the Majority referred to the considerable evidence supplied over the years, which tended to show that marijuana should not be treated as a Schedule I controlled substance illegal under all circumstances but should instead be reclassified as a Schedule II gojzales permissible under certain circumstances.
Despite olinion concluded that under the “rational basis test” Congress had acted within its constitutional authority when it enacted the CSA and applied it to intrastate possession of marijuana, the Court nevertheless had to distinguish Lopez and Morrisonthe Court’s more recent Commerce Clause decisions.