Gonzales v raich case brief summary. Gonzalez v Raich Case Brief 2022-10-26
Gonzales v raich case brief summary Rating:
5,1/10
882
reviews
Gonzales v. Raich, also known as Ashcroft v. Raich, was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. The case involved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and specifically addressed the issue of whether the federal government has the authority to regulate the use of marijuana for medical purposes under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
At the heart of the case were two individuals, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, both of whom used marijuana for medicinal purposes. Raich and Monson argued that the federal government did not have the authority to regulate their use of marijuana, as it was being used solely for medicinal purposes and was not being bought or sold. They argued that the federal government's attempts to regulate their use of marijuana were a violation of their rights under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The federal government, represented by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, argued that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes was part of a larger interstate market in marijuana, and that the federal government had the authority to regulate this market under the Commerce Clause. The government argued that allowing individuals to use marijuana for medicinal purposes would create a "slippery slope" that could lead to widespread abuse of the drug, and that the federal government had a legitimate interest in regulating the use of marijuana to protect the public health and safety.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government and upheld the authority of Congress to regulate the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The Court held that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate activities that have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, and that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes was part of a larger interstate market in marijuana. The Court also held that the federal government had a legitimate interest in regulating the use of marijuana to protect the public health and safety.
The Gonzales v. Raich decision was a significant ruling that clarified the scope of the Commerce Clause and the authority of the federal government to regulate the use of controlled substances. It also had significant implications for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, as it established that the federal government has the authority to regulate the use of marijuana even for medicinal purposes. The decision has been widely debated and has had a significant impact on the ongoing debate over the legalization of marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes.
Gonzales V. Raich Case Brief
Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp 's agricultural and industrial uses. One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it 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. Further, Monson cultivates her own medical marijuana, however, Raich does not because she is unable to. In this regard, again, this case is readily distinguishable from Wickard. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. United States, Lottery Case, By this measure, I think the regulation must be sustained.
Filburn, ante, at 2 Scalia, J. Wirtz, Wickard, 317 U. Lopez and Morrison did not indicate that the constitutionality of federal regulation depends on superficial and formalistic distinctions. Wickard involved a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 AAA , which directed the Secretary of Agriculture to set national quotas on wheat production, and penalties for excess production. As the Court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market — and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State.
First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson's home, they seized six cannabis plants. Marijuana is highly unusual among the substances subject to the CSA in that it can be cultivated without any materials that have traveled in interstate commerce. Young, stated this in the matter of Marijuana Medical Rescheduling Petition, in 1988 when attempting to list marijuana as a Schedule II drug Keene 93. § 922 b 1 , barring licensed dealers from selling guns to minors, see post, at 52-53, but the relationship between the regulatory scheme of which § 922 b 1 is a part requiring all dealers in firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce to be licensed, see § 922 a and the statute at issue in Lopez approaches the nonexistent — which is doubtless why the Government did not attempt to justify the statute on the basis of that relationship. Issue: Does the power vested in Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the States include the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law? This Court has regularly entertained as-applied challenges under constitutional provisions, see United States v. Title III concerns the import and export of controlled substances.
. Barnett argued the cause for respondents. In the CSA, Congress has undertaken to extinguish the interstate market in Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana. Raich suffered from various conditions such as a brain tumor, seizure disorder, wasting syndrome, and other documented medical conditions. Evans; for Robert L. Raich Supreme Court Ruling The Court ruled 6-4 in favor of the Petitioner, Attorney General Alberto R.
Monson decided to cultivate her own marijuana. So, from the "separate and distinct" class of activities identified by the Court of Appeals and adopted by the dissenters , we are left with "the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. The AAA itself confirmed that Congress made an explicit choice not to reach—and thus the Court could not possibly have approved of federal control over—small-scale, noncommercial wheat farming. This class of intrastate users is therefore distinguishable from others. III Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power.
Likewise I did not understand our discussion of the role of courts in enforcing outer limits of the Commerce Clause for the sake of maintaining the federalist balance our Constitution requires, see Lopez, 514 U. She had stated the action done by the Commerce Clause authority was related to the Federalism issue among the states. The majority does not explain why it selects a remarkably expansive 40-year-old definition. The dissenters fall prey to similar reasoning. Klein, and Mark T. It is misleading because, unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.
The scant evidence that exists suggests that few people — the vast majority of whom are aged 40 or older — register to use medical marijuana. Second, we noted that the statute contained no express jurisdictional requirement establishing its connection to interstate commerce. The court characterized this class as "different in kind from drug trafficking. As explained above, the CSA, enacted in 1970 as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, 84 Stat. Filburn and the later cases endorsing its reasoning foreclose that claim. The question is thus whether the intrastate ban is "necessary and proper" as applied to medical marijuana users like respondents.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Pacific Legal Foundation by M. This article discusses the background of Gonzales v. But even assuming that States' controls allow some seepage of medical marijuana into the illicit drug market, there is a multibillion-dollar interstate market for marijuana. Here, Congress similarly sought to regulate and eliminate the national market for illegal drugs by eliminating the home-grown varieties. The declarations are not even specific to marijuana. United States, 379 U.
§ 801 5 , and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to "regulate Commerce. Gettman, 2006 … Gonzales V. That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson are two California residents who were prescribed marijuana by doctors for their serious medical conditions. The majority's treatment of the substantial effects test is rootless, because it is not tethered to either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. In the event that a qualified patient is arrested for possession or his cannabis is seized, he could seek to prove as an affirmative defense that, in conformity with state law, he possessed or cultivated small quantities of marijuana intrastate solely for personal medical use.
For example, patients residing in the cities of Oakland and Santa Cruz and in the counties of Sonoma and Tehama are permitted to possess up to 3 pounds of processed marijuana. The Act reinforced law enforcement's abilities to fight against interstate and international drug trafficking. United States, 521 U. Our decision about whether gun possession in school zones substantially affected interstate commerce turned on four considerations. Here, Respondents did not obtain the marijuana through a commercial transaction, but rather Respondents either grown it themselves or obtain it from a caregiver free of charge. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Supra, at 60-61; ante, at 37 SCALIA, J.
