Compassionate Use Act: The Use of Medical Marijuana
Gonzales v. Raich
Citation:
545 U.S. 1
Facts:
California passed the “Compassionate Use Act,” which allowed for the use of medical marijuana.
Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions.
Issue:
Whether Congress can regulate homegrown medical marijuana consumed at home pursuant to the interstate commerce clause
Decision/Holding:
Yes, law upheld. Congress may regulate intrastate activity where the behavior, in the aggregate, can impact interstate commerce. 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. The plausible story in this case is that the federal government cannot rightly distinguish between marijuana grown in one’s own home and the marijuana sold in interstate commerce (clearly a constitutionally authorized regulation, according to the court). In order to regulate the latter, Congress must be able to regulate the former (grown in one’s own home).
Analysis:
This case is activist because the Court abuses precedent, thereby reinforcing grave errors, and strains the text of the Commerce Clause to its breaking point to uphold a federal statute that regulates purely local activities. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court overturned several Congressional acts on the grounds that they were not a reasonable use of the commerce power. U.S. v.
Citation:
545 U.S. 1
Facts:
California passed the “Compassionate Use Act,” which allowed for the use of medical marijuana.
Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. Respondents claim that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions.
Issue:
Whether Congress can regulate homegrown medical marijuana consumed at home pursuant to the interstate commerce clause
Decision/Holding:
Yes, law upheld. Congress may regulate intrastate activity where the behavior, in the aggregate, can impact interstate commerce. 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. The plausible story in this case is that the federal government cannot rightly distinguish between marijuana grown in one’s own home and the marijuana sold in interstate commerce (clearly a constitutionally authorized regulation, according to the court). In order to regulate the latter, Congress must be able to regulate the former (grown in one’s own home).
Analysis:
This case is activist because the Court abuses precedent, thereby reinforcing grave errors, and strains the text of the Commerce Clause to its breaking point to uphold a federal statute that regulates purely local activities. In the 1990s, the Supreme Court overturned several Congressional acts on the grounds that they were not a reasonable use of the commerce power. U.S. v.