California voters passed Proposition in , allowing qualified patients to cultivate and use marijuana for designated medical illnesses. Gonzales v. Raich. Media. Oral Argument – November 29, ; Opinion Announcement – June 06, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. On June 6, , the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal Controlled Substances . The dissenters attacked the Majority opinion as a complete departure from the.

Author: Mikalar Daikus
Country: Montserrat
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 4 December 2013
Pages: 253
PDF File Size: 8.32 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.67 Mb
ISBN: 869-9-40350-819-7
Downloads: 90915
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Samutilar

The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity.

The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

It is so ordered. This section does not cite any sources. This Court has regularly entertained as-applied challenges under constitutional provisions, see United States v. Congress has exercised its power over interstate commerce to criminalize trafficking in marijuana across state lines. Retrieved 10 July Having thus defined the relevant conduct, v.raicg must determine whether, under our precedents, the conduct is economic and, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

Both Angel Raich and Diane Monson are California residents who gonsales physician-recommended marijuana to manage their conditions.

Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.

WirtzU. Raich and Monson were represented by Randy Barnett.


The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Journal List Public Health Rep v.

This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for gonsales lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. The CSA provides for the periodic updating of schedules and delegates authority to the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to add, remove, or transfer substances to, from, or between schedules.

Gonzales v. Raich :: U.S. 1 () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In essence, the Majority allowed the larger interstate purpose of the Act to swallow up conduct that, considered on its own, might have been unrelated to commerce.

Despite considerable efforts to reschedule marijuana, it remains a Schedule I drug. See United States v. In the dissenters view, the Majority decision represented a vast expansion of federal powers to intrude into purely opinioj matters:.

InCalifornia voters passed Propositionnow codified as the Compassionate Use Act of Those gonzalea are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite….

But respondents do not challenge the CSA on its face. If so, the Court invites increased federal regulation of local activity even if, as it suggests, Congress would not enact a new interstate scheme exclusively for the sake of reaching intrastate activity, see anteat 22, n. The court relied heavily on United States v.

The Majority also concluded that it was irrelevant that the use in this particular case was totally intrastate and involved no commercial trade as such. Anteat 21— The substantial gonzaless test is easily manipulated for another reason.

Instead, they challenge it as applied to their conduct. This first important federal resort to the commerce power was followed in by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, thereafter, mainly afterby many others. We enforce the “outer limits” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government.


Gonzales v. Raich – Wikipedia

Opinjon are the people who can, at the same time, declare that MJ has no medical use Schedule Iand then sanction a medical grow facility at U of MS to supply MMJ to those enrolled in their Compassionate Relief program.

Angel McClary Raich, et al. Despite evidence regarding marijuana’s potential to relieve pain, both Congress and succeeding Administrations have elected to leave cannabis subject to a total prohibition under Schedule I of the Act, without provision for legal use.

Ipinion powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern gonaales lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner.

The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Under the CSA, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana constitutes a criminal violation.

The statutory challenges at issue there were markedly different from the challenge here.