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.

Conclusions

Legal briefs were filed and oral argument occurred on November 29, 2004 (transcript). The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Stevens, was issued on June 6 2005 (transcript). Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence (transcript) that aimed to differentiate the decision from the controversial results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison.

Related Topics:
November 29 - 2004 - Justice Stevens - June 6 - 2005 - Justice Scalia - United States v. Lopez - United States v. Morrison

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice O'Connor, dissenting (transcript), began her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez; she follows that with a reference to New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

Related Topics:
Justice O'Connor - New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that ?a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

O'Connor concluded:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:Relying on Congress? abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one?s own home for one?s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. 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. But whatever the wisdom of California?s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent (transcript), stating in part:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Both Raich and Monson have indicated their intention to continue using medical marijuana in spite of the ruling. Some activists have compared this decision to the Dred Scott case, with the implication that the ruling may have only a temporary impact leading to political reversal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Two days after the ruling, the International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board "welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for 'medical' use, should be prohibited." INCB President Hamid Ghodse noted, "Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems," referring to the drug's Schedule IV status under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugshttp://www.incb.org/incb/press_release_2005-06-08_1.html.

Related Topics:
International Narcotics Control Board - Hamid Ghodse - Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~