California is known as a trailblazer in the legalization and regulation of marijuana. In 1913, it was the first state to forbid the use of marijuana and, in the 1990s, it was the first to authorize its use for medicinal purposes. However, authorization of medicinal marijuana came with controversy because it stood in conflict with the federal Controlled Substance Act, passed after the beginning of the war on drugs in the 1970s.
This article discusses the background of Gonzales v. Raich, a Supreme Court Case decided in 2005 that involved the federal government and some Californians who used medicinal marijuana.
Gonzales v. Raich Case Summary and Facts
After voters passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, marijuana for medical use was legalized in California. However, the law conflicted with the existing Controlled Substance Act (CSA) which bans the possession of marijuana in all fifty states.
Controlled Substance Act is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 aimed to integrate numerous drug laws into one comprehensive statute. The Act reinforced law enforcement's abilities to fight against interstate and international drug trafficking. The act also made it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess controlled substances not authorized by the CSA.
The CSA categorizes all federally regulated substances into five schedules based on the substance's safety, medical use, the potential for misuse, and dependency liability. The schedule of a certain drug can be changed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, or a petition from an interested party.
Marijuana falls into Drug Schedule I because it's not currently accepted by federal government standards for medical use, it hasn't been accepted for use in medically supervised treatments, and it has the potential to be abused. This makes the possession or use of marijuana a criminal offense.
Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson are two California residents who were prescribed marijuana by doctors for their serious medical conditions. Raich suffered from various conditions such as a brain tumor, seizure disorder, wasting syndrome, and other documented medical conditions. Monson suffered from chronic back pain and spasms.
In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized Monson's six cannabis plants and destroyed them. A group of medical marijuana users, including Raich and Monson, sued the DEA and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft in a federal district court. The group sought injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the enforcement of the CSA.
An injunction is a court order that usually prohibits an individual from performing a specific action. In some cases, an injunction can be used to order a party to complete a specific action, like paying restitution.
Declaratory relief simply means a court makes a determination that settles any uncertainty about a legal issue.
Photograph from Medical Marijuana Dispensary DEA Raid, Shay Sowden, CC-BY-2.0, Wikimedia Commons.
The district court ruled against the medical marijuana users. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and deemed the enforcement of the CSA in intrastate medical marijuana use was unconstitutional. The district court was ordered by the circuit court to enter the injunction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that using medical marijuana didn't substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore couldn't be regulated by Congress.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supported their claim through the recent Circuit Court interpretation of United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000) which held that classes of local activities were beyond the scope of federal power.
Interstate defines activities that are carried out across states. On the other hand, intrastate defines activities that take place only within one state.
Gonzalez v. Raich case was argued before the Supreme Court on November 29, 2004, and was decided on June 6, 2005. By this time, John Ashcroft was no longer the United States Attorney General. In his place, Alberto R. Gonzales became the petitioner.
Photograph of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Department of Justice, Wikimedia Commns.
Case Parties
The case was decided by the Rehnquist Court on June 6, 2005. The petitioner was United States Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales (2005-2007). The respondents were Angel McClary Raich, Diane Monson, and other medical marijuana users.
Case Issue
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Congress exceeded its commerce clause power by enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in intrastate production and possession of medical marijuana.
Let's take a look at the arguments of both parties to get a better understanding of the Court's decision.
Raich's Argument
The respondents claimed that if the CSA was enforced, it would violate not only the Commerce Clause but also their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the doctrine of medical necessity. Raich and Monson argued they had no success with other treatments they had undergone and depended on their use of marijuana to function due to the severity of their medical conditions.
The Due Process Clause states that no one shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law."2
The Ninth Amendment states that the rights listed in the Constitution are not the only rights people are limited to.
The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government is limited to the powers the Constitution grants to it.
The doctrine of medical necessity relates to health care services that are, in this case, provided by doctors that are deemed necessary to treat a condition or its symptoms based on clinical standards of care.
The Government's Argument
The U.S. government argued that through the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970's Controlled Substance Act, Congress created a regulatory system that made it illegal to produce, sell, or possess controlled substances not authorized by the CSA. and since marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug, it is a criminal offense to cultivate or possess it.
The government cited Perez v. United States, which established that if local activities fall within a certain economic "class of activities", Congress has the power to regulate said activities if there is proof it will affect interstate commerce. In this case, the national marijuana market, for which there is a federal ban, would be affected by one state permitting its citizens to possess and use marijuana.
The government stressed that to find in its favor, the court only had to determine if there was a rational basis for concluding that interstate commerce would be affected by the respondents' production, possession, and use of marijuana.
Commerce Clause Cases Similar to Gonzalez v. Raich
United States v. Lopez answered the question of whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was constitutional. It was found that Congress didn't have the power to enact this law because it has nothing to do with commerce; the law was a criminal statute.
United States v. Morrison answered the question of whether Congress could enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 through their powers under the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that Congress lacked the authority to do so because the act didn't regulate an economic activity nor did it resolve grievances caused by the state.
Gonzales v. Raich Supreme Court Ruling
The Court ruled 6-4 in favor of the Petitioner, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on behalf of the U.S. government. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court. It was held that, despite the passing of the Compassionate Use Act in California, Congress had the power to regulate local growing and use of marijuana. Justice Stevens stated that precedent established Congress' power to monitor local activities, such as the possession and use of marijuana, as long as it has the possibility to affect interstate commerce. In this case, the local cultivation and use of marijuana could be prohibited by Congress because it fell within a "class of activities" (i.e. the national marijuana market whose supply and demand could be affected by local use). Thus, Congress would be allowed to restrict intrastate use in order to regulate the national market.
Significance of Gonzales v. Raich
The significance of the Court's ruling in Gonzales v. Raich is the confirmation of Congress' power to regulate intrastate medical marijuana cultivation and possession. The Court confirmed that it was within Congress' commerce clause power to monitor local medical marijuana activities because it affected the national market which under federal law was not legal.
Impact of Gonzales v. Raich
The ruling in Gonzalez v. Raich granted Congress the ability to regulate activities within states that are not economic in nature. Consequently, this gives Congress the power to police activities happening within states, which impacts our understanding of federalism in the United States. It also changed the shape of dual sovereignty - the idea that state governments and the federal government are two different sovereign entities.
Gonzales v. Raich - Key takeaways
- California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act in 1996.
- The Compassionate Use Act authorized the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes.
- The Controlled Substance Act, part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, prohibited the possession and use of marijuana in all fifty states.
- After the case was sent to the Supreme Court, the Court decided that Congress had the power to regulate local activities if there was a rational basis that the activities would affect interstate commerce.
- Gonzales v. Raich expanded Congress' regulatory power under the commerce clause to include non-economic activities.
1. The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 5.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
