Gonzales v. Raich

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Background

California passed a medical marijuana act in Proposition 215 of 1996. The federal government opposes all use of medical marijuana.

Related Topics:
California - Proposition 215 - 1996

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The case of Raich and Monson against the government

Angel Raich of Oakland, California, Diane Monson of Oroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued the government on October 9, 2002 to stop the government from interfering with their right to medical marijuana.

Related Topics:
Angel Raich - Oakland, California - Diane Monson - Oroville, California - October 9 - 2002

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The marijuana Angel Raich used is homegrown, and was therefore allowed under California law, but not under federal law. Diane Monson grew her own in her garden. Agents of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration raided her land and seized and destroyed her marijuana crop in August 2002. Raich and Monson sued for injunctive and declaratory relief in October 2002, claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct.

Related Topics:
Drug Enforcement Administration - August 2002 - Injunctive - Declaratory relief - October 2002

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One of the enumerated limits on the U.S. Federal Government's power is the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which grants only the power to regulate "commerce," and only commerce that occurs "among the several States," with foreign countries, and "with the Indian tribes." Raich argued that her conduct of possessing medical marijuana and receiving it for free from compassionate gardeners was not commerce. Neither she nor Monson paid for their marijuana, and neither obtained it from another state. Even the soil, seeds, nutrients, and lumber used to grow the marijuana were obtained from California.

Related Topics:
Commerce Clause - United States Constitution

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Angel Raich claimed she uses marijuana to keep herself alive. She and her doctor claimed to have tried dozens of prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions, and that she was allergic to most of them. Her doctor declared under oath that her life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana. Diane Monson suffered from chronic pain due to a car accident a decade before the case. She used marijuana to relieve the pain and muscle spasms around her spine.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The government's case

The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize and opposes medical marijuana. They sent federal agents to break up California's medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. They believed federal law preempted that of California. Another argument was that, if a single exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice.

Related Topics:
United States - Federal law - Controlled Substances Act - Preempted

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The United States is a federation, with most powers in the state governments. Many expansions of federal power enacted during the first phase of the New Deal in the 1930s were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to increase the number of judges on the Court to fifteen (the court packing scheme), and fill it with sympathetic judges. However, in what was called "the switch in time that saved nine," the Court reversed course and found reasons to uphold new expansions of federal power. Wickard v. Filburn was one of these cases, which ruled that federal crop price controls reached the wheat grown on a rural farm to be fed to the owners and their farm animals. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" is "commerce" because if he had not grown and consumed it, he would have had to buy it from someone. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat it would affect the interstate market in wheat. This case marked what may be as the high water mark of the commerce power. For sixty years—until the 1995 decision in Lopez—the Supreme Court struck down no law as exceeding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

Related Topics:
United States - Federation - New Deal - 1930s - Supreme Court of the United States - Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Court packing - Wickard v. Filburn - 1995 - Lopez

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~