Nebraska and oklahoma are misreading raich the washington post. The us supreme courts consideration captured the public policy debate about the medical use of marijuana. It was expected that conservative justices rehnquist, thomas, and o. Under a law the federal controlled substance act, marijuana is a schedule one controlled substance, however under a 1996 state california law, marijuana is legalized for usage for people who have a prescription from a doctor for medical usage. Federalism as a casualty of the war on drugs cornell journal of law and public policy, vol. The court found the federal law valid, although the marijuana in question had been grown and consumed within a single state, and had never entered interstate commerce.
Since cannabis was first banned nationally in 1937, the federal government has never recognized a medical use. Constitutional law principles download ebook pdf, epub. Nov 30, 2005 in 2005, the supreme court decided gonzales v. On june 6, 2005, the united states supreme court decided gonzales v. Raich, united states supreme court, 2005 case summary of gonzales v. Raich case timeline federal law marijuana is treated like any other controlled substance part of interstate commerce government has power to control it getting to the supreme court state law to the world october 9, 2002 complaint filed 2 years until. Raich, which i litigated on behalf of angel raich and diane monson from the filing of the complaint to the. The ninth circuit had found the federal law unconstitutional as applied, concluding that its enforcement against medicinal users was beyond congresss enumerated power to regulate interstate. Raich case started her statement by citing come of the relevant issues that are related to the case. Army corps of engineers actually do little or nothing to mitigate the impact of raich.
Raich, the supreme court made a judgment that affected the california users of medical marijuana. Raich brought an action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief preventing enforcement of the federal comprehensive drug abuse. Download constitutional law principles or read online books in pdf, epub, tuebl, and mobi format. On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit june 6, 2005 justice stevens delivered the opinion of the court. Constitution authorizes the federal government to enforce the controlled substances act despite. Raich 2005in 2002, the federal government through the drug enforcement agency dea entered the property of angel raich and repossessed the medicinal marijuana of which she was legally in possession with regard to the statutes enacted by the state government of california. In a 63 opinion delivered by justice john paul stevens, the court held that the commerce clause gave congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Raich, the supreme court was presented with a conflict between californias state law, permitting the medicinal use of marijuana. Raich involved a conflict between californias compassionate use act 1 and the federal controlled substances act csa. The latest developments in the war on drugs, september 2006. Raich 2005, placed the issue of federal regulatory powers squarely before the court. Through the controlled substances act, congress has comprehensively regulated the national market in drugs with the potential for abuse. In 19, california was one of the first states to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana,2 and at the end of the century, california became the first state to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. Was the federal law a constitutional exercise of congresss power under the commerce clause.
Californias compassionate use act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. In california, the state enacted the compassionate use act in 1996, which allowed the use of medical marijuana to individuals in california who needed it for medical reasons. Raich, decided in 2005, the court ruled that the commerce clause of the u. In this case the court considers whether the power to regulate interstate commerce allows congress to prohibit individuals from cultivating small amount of marijuana for personal medical. Mar 20, 2017 following is the case brief for gonzales v. The supreme courts recent seemingly profederalism decisions in gonzales v. Raich, the supreme court upheld the controlled substances act csa through which congress prohibited the medicinal use.
Miscellaneous justice sandra day oconnor who presented a dissent of the gonzales v. For those hoping for help from the supreme court, it appears unlikely. In 19, california was one of the first states to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana,2 and at the end of the century, california became the first state. Raich, the supreme court was presented with a conflict between californias state law, permitting the medicinal use of marijuana, and the federal controlled substances act csa. Raich opinion of the court i california has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. Although the court found that the federal enforcement interests waned when compared to the harm that california residents would suffer if denied access to medically necessary marijuana, it concluded that respondents could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of. This was a case filed in the united states of america supreme court. Raich, the court reasoned congress had the power under the commerce clause to regulate a. Raich and monson challenged the csa, contending that their homegrown marijuana had no impact on interstate commerce and therefore its seizure was a violation of the commerce clause. Raich congresss ability to prohibit possession and cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes, city of new london, connecticut v. Dec 19, 2014 among other vices, it seriously misreads the supreme courts decision in gonzales v. Raich, the comprehensive scheme principle, and the constitutionality of the endangered species act article pdf available october 2005 with 65 reads how we measure reads. The court should not necessarily look for a substantial impact, but only should require that a plausible story be told to uphold congressional action pursuant to the commerce clause.
Federalism as a casualty of the war on drugs the supreme courts recent decision in gonzales v. Raich, which i litigated on behalf of angel raich and diane monson from the. Justice oconnor, joined by justices rehnquist and thomas. Raich 2005, justices scalia and kennedy departed from their previous positions as parts of the lopez and morrison majorities to uphold a federal law regarding marijuana. If you are having problems downloading any of the pdf files, please use this link to update your adobe. Raich 2005 in 2002, the federal government through the drug enforcement agency dea entered the property of angel raich and repossessed the medicinal marijuana of which she was legally in possession with regard to the statutes enacted by the state government of california. Amici curiae brief for the lymphoma foundation of america et al, ashcroft v raich, no. There is simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users constitute, in the aggregate, a sizable enough class to have a discernable, let alone substantial, impact on the national illicit drug marketor otherwise to threaten the csa regime. Because raich did not raise this issue below, and because our order instructed the parties to brief only the three claims set forth above, we hold that raich s claim based on the. Angel just spoke to a large crowd of media reporters and shes now on her way to another press conference put on by angel wings patient outreach, inc.
In this case the court considers whether the power to regulate interstate commerce allows congress to prohibit individuals from cultivating small amount of marijuana for personal medical use, notwithstanding a state law allowing it. Explicit evidence is helpful when substantial effect is not visible to the naked. Federal agents seized and destroyed raich s plants. Please watch our video in which we interpret gonzales v raich. Subsequently, the dea raided monsons house and destroyed some one her marijuana. Respondents sought declaratory relief to prohibit the enforcement of the federal controlled. Congress may regulate intrastate activity where the behavior, in the aggregate, can impact interstate commerce. Lewis carroll referred comically to anglosaxon attitudes, and for a while i thought we might regard the supreme courts federalism decisions as reflecting, not so much a coherent doctrine, but an attitude toward federalism a general lack of sympathy for claims of expansive national power, whic. She had stated the action done by the commerce clause authority was related to the federalism issue among the states. Respondents were growing medicinal marijuana, and dea agents came to their home and destroyed the plants. Raich, political scholars often question whether the rehnquist court was truly a federalist revival, or if federalism was just a means for achieving conservative policy young 2005. Raich, 1 a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal controlled substances act csa as applied to individuals who grow marijuana for personal and medical use under californias compassionate use act cua. Ca passed compassionate use ct to ensure that seriously ill residents had access to medicinal marijuana. I also contend that the raich decision is misguided on both textual and structural grounds.
Justice stevens delivered the opinion of the court. Angel mcclary raich after the united states supreme court hears her case no. On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit june 6, 2005 justice stevens delivered the. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the reporter of decisions. Among other vices, it seriously misreads the supreme courts decision in gonzales v. Stevens argued that the courts precedent firmly established congress commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities.
Raich, a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal controlled substances. Raich uses medical marijuana because she is very ill. Raich 2004 summary this month we spotlight the landmark federalism case gonzalez v. Raich that enforcement of the federal controlled substances act 1970 against the intrastate noncommercial possession, production, and use of medical cannabis medical marijuana in compliance with a california state law was consistent with the commerce clause because such. Because raich did not raise this issue below, and because our order instructed the parties to brief only the three claims set forth above, we hold that raich s claim based on the plain language of the controlled substances act is waived. Raich, a case that pitted two sick women, who use medical cannabis, against the u.
Congress enacted the controlled substances act csa, which categorized illegal drugs into various categories and restricted the possession, selling, and purchasing of these substances. The respondents claimed that enforcing the csa against them would violate the commerce clause, the due process clause of the 5th amendment, and the ninth and. Raich marks a watershed moment in the development of judicial. Dissent, thomas html pdf gonzales, attorney general, et al. A link to your casebriefs lsat prep course workbook will begin to download upon. Argued november 29, 2004decided june 6, 2005 californias. In the 1990s after years of research showing that cannabis has a number of medical purposes, campaigners in california and a number of other states were able to pass laws allowing seriously ill patients to grow, and possess cannabis. Although their consumption was authorized under a california statute, the federal government, under the csa, confiscated the drugs. Raich was legally permitted to use medical marijuana and proceeded to grow her own.
1351 168 1050 749 511 166 1471 1252 123 704 1202 269 972 1047 222 1018 679 344 893 392 1482 706 325 861 666 23 1274 399 557 527 1168 526 1068 285 988 1325 240 186 41 1009 406 447