The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Neither case involved the power of Congress to exert control over intrastate activities in connection with a more comprehensive scheme of regulation; Lopez expressly disclaimed that it was such a case, 514 U. It has long been settled that Congress power to regulate commerce includes the power to prohibit commerce in a particular commodity. September 2010 voters passed in 1996, legalizing the use of. The first two categories are self-evident, since they are the ingredients of interstate commerce itself. It was then reestablished in 1813 and was very successful. Drug Control Policy, Marijuana Fact Sheet 5 Feb.
Until that day arrives, federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering. Abrahamson, , 635 1993 ; Hillsborough County v. Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants from the California Medical Association and the California Nurses Association. Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patients primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Ashcroft, with Ashcroft as a nominal defendant by virtue of his status as heading the. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 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.
Taking into account the fact that California is only one of at least nine States to have authorized the medical use of marijuana, a fact Justice OConnors dissent conveniently disregards in arguing that the demonstrated effect on commerce while admittedly plausible is ultimately unsubstantiated, post, at 14, 16, Congress could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial. All the activities done by the Raich and company had been within the California State and it was clear that the drugs were purely used for treating illness and diseases, specifically used also by Raich Guither, 2007. Doremus, 1919 ; Leary v. All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market. Lopez, 1995 , the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines.
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. The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power. In the rehearing was before Judges Pregerson, Beam, and Paez. Ashcroft became the Petitioner and Raich became the Respondent. Kurth Ranch, , 770, 774, n.
The fact that Wickards own impact on the market was trivial by itself was not a sufficient reason for removing him from the scope of federal regulation. §§841 a 1 , 844 a. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. In part because of the low incidence of medical marijuana use, many law enforcement officials report that the introduction of medical marijuana laws has not affected their law enforcement efforts. We explained: Section 922 q is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms.
Moreover, that the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so. Ante, at 15—16; Lopez, 514 U. Justice Scalia believed that agency deference should be given to the Attorney General under both Auer and Chevron. On April 17, 2002, U. In the wheat production case which was also commerce related case, the farmers are regulate the production of wheat in order to have a control in the volume of wheat that is transported within the states of the country. This principle is not without limitation. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from Marijuana Policy Project and Rick Doblin, Ph.
The appellants differentiated their case from R. It was very clear that there was no commerce that had undergone in the course of the marijuana usage by the California Medical Co-op. The drugs are grouped together based on their accepted medical uses, the potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body. Lopez, supra, at 589 Thomas, J. Moore, 1975 ; United States v. See generally Lopez, 514 U.
Well-settled law controls our answer. Please email Angel Raich using the link below. Filburn and the later cases endorsing its reasoning foreclose that claim. Raich 2005 Citation — Gonzales v. It identified 42 opiates, 22 opium derivatives, and 17 hallucinogenic substances as Schedule I drugs. Then in 1970, after declaration of the national war on drugs, federal drug policy underwent a significant transformation.
United States, , 155 1992 quoting Gregory v. He had argued for a more limited congressional power under the Commerce Clause in Raich, which focused on intrastate and interstate commerce. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. For these reasons I dissent. These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. United States, , 1416 1969.
The plants grown by Raich and Monson were legal in California under Proposition 215, which permitted the medical use of marijuana, but illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classified them as Schedule I drugs. United States, , 14—16 1969. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California—it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. 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 statutory scheme that the Government is defending in this litigation is at the opposite end of the regulatory spectrum. This cannot be justified under either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. United States, , 150 1971.