Gonzales v. Raich

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Gonzales v. Raich
ArgueDate=November 29
ArgueYear=2004
DecideDate=June 6
DecideYear=2005
FullName=Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et al.
USVol=545
USPage=1
Citation=125 S. Ct. 2195; 162 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4656; 73 U.S.L.W. 4407; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327
Prior="Raich v. Ashcroft", 248 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D. Cal.), "rev'd", 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003), "cert. granted", 542 U.S. 936 (2004)
Subsequent=None
Holding=Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/argument/
Majority=Stevens
JoinMajority=Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence=Scalia
Dissent=O'Connor
JoinDissent=Rehnquist (part I, II), Thomas (parts I, II)
Dissent2=Thomas
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, 18 (the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses); Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971 (2000); Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2005)

"Gonzales v. Raich" (previously "Ashcroft v. Raich"), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

John Ashcroft was in the case's name because he was Attorney General when the case was filed. The case was renamed when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General.

Factual background

California voters passed Proposition 215 of 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. The United States Federal Government has limited the use of marijuana since the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into effect. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical marijuana, which was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law. On August 15,2002, Butte County Sheriff's Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's marijuana plants. Sheriff Sam Biglari supervised the raid and needed backup when Raich resisted. The marijuana plants were illegal schedule one drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Angel Raich sued, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

California was one of nine states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. California's Compassionate Use Act allows limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich's physician said that without marijuana, Raich would be in excruciating pain and could die.

Legal background

The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the federal government. The state governments can act in any sphere not prohibited to them (10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution) but the federal government can pass laws only in areas specifically delegated to it (Art. I, U.S. Constitution). The state governments have general police power, which the federal government does not have. Consequently, a substantial amount of U.S. federal law regulating numerous areas, including economic legislation and criminal law, are legally premised on an exercise of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, along with the Fourteenth Amendment and the spending power, allows Congress to do things that affect states. For more information, see States' rights and the Rehnquist Court.

Many expansions of federal power enacted during the first phase of the New Deal in the 1930s, on the basis of the federal commerce power, were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed increasing the number of justices on the Court from nine to fifteen (the "court packing" scheme) and filling the new positions with jurists sympathetic to his New Deal initiatives. However, in what was called "the switch in time that saved nine," the Court reversed course and upheld new expansions of federal power, and the number of justices was not increased.

The case of Raich and Monson against the government

Angel Raich of Oakland, California, Diane Monson of Oroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued the government for injunctive and declaratory relief on October 9, 2002 to stop the government from interfering with their right to produce and use medical marijuana claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct.

They claimed the seizure was a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which grants the federal government the power to regulate "commerce," but only commerce that occurs "among the several States," with foreign countries, and "with the Indian tribes." Raich argued that her possession and consumption of medical marijuana was not commerce. Neither she nor Monson paid for their marijuana, and neither obtained it from another state. The soil, seeds, nutrients, and lumber used to grow the marijuana were obtained within California.

Angel Raich claimed she used marijuana to keep herself alive. She and her doctor claimed to have tried dozens of prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions, and that she was allergic to most of them. Her doctor [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/raichashlucido.pdf declared under oath] that Raich's life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana. Diane Monson suffered from chronic pain due to a car accident a decade before the case. She used marijuana to relieve the pain and muscle spasms around her spine.

The government's case

The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were assigned to break up California's medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. This activity was the result of the belief that federal law preempted that of California. The government argued that if a single exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.

Litigation

On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with Raich and Monson. In their ruling, they declared: "We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the Controlled Substances Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority..."

Organizations involved

Partnership for a Drug-Free America, several other anti-drug organizations [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/Drug%20Free%20America%20brief.pdf] , alliance of seven congressmen including Mark Souder and Katherine Harris filed amicus brief for the side of federal government. [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/US%20Reps%20brief.pdf] The environmentalist group Community Rights Council also filed a brief for the government, fearing limitation of federal power would undermine their agenda. [ [http://www.communityrights.org/Newsroom/crcInTheNews/WP11-29-04.asp Court to Hear Marijuana Case Legality of Cultivating Plant for Medical Use Is at Issue] Charles Lane, The Washington Post, November 29, 2004 ]

The Cato Institute [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/Cato%20Institute%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf] , Institute for Justice [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/The%20Institute%20for%20Justice%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf] , many libertarian organizations, and NORML, along with other groups opposing the War on Drugs, filed briefs for Raich and Monson. The governments of California, Maryland, and Washington also filed briefs supporting Raich. The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three strongly anti-drug states from the usually conservative South, filed a brief supporting Raich on the grounds of state's rights. [ [http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html Raich v. Ashcroft - A Guide to the Supreme Court Case] DrugWarRant.com]

Result

Legal briefs were filed and oral argument occurred on November 29, 2004 [ [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/03-1454.pdf Transcript] ] . The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Stevens, was issued on June 6 2005. It upheld the validity of Controlled Substances Act as an exercise of federal power because Congress "could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." The majority did not address the substantive due process claims raised by the respondents.

The Commerce Clause was the main issue. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce includes power to regulate:
*channels of interstate commerce.
*instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
*activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The last of the three was relevant to the issue at hand. The relevant precedents for it are "Wickard v. Filburn" (1942), "United States v. Lopez" (1995) and "United States v. Morrison" (2000).

The starting point for the Court's opinion was the fact that it was conceded that Congress had the right to control or ban marijuana for non-medical uses:

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. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.

Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses:

Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity

Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that aimed to differentiate the decision from the more recent results of "United States v. Lopez" and "United States v. Morrison". Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the "Lopez" and "Morrison" decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with "Raich" for the following reason:cquote|Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.” "Lopez" [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454#concurrence1 ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.] from FindLaw.com]

Dissent

Justice O'Connor, dissenting, began her opinion by citing "United States v. Lopez", which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in "New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann":

Cquote
Federalism 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..." [http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf]

O'Connor concluded:

Cquote
Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. 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. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

Cquote
Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States."

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.and Cquote

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption(not because it is interstate commerce, butbecause it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce),then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded bythe Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningfullimits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs,guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to"appropria [te] state police powers under the guise of regulatingcommerce."

and further: Cquote

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees,clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance tothe people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those ofthe States are "numerous and indefinite." [http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf]

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, author of the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, joined O'Connor's dissent.

Aftermath

Both Raich and Monson have indicated their intention to continue using marijuana for medical use in spite of the ruling.

Two days after the ruling, the International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board "welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for 'medical' use, should be prohibited." INCB President Hamid Ghodse noted, "Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems," referring to the drug's Schedule I status under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [ [http://www.incb.org/incb/press_release_2005-06-08_1.html INCB: US Supreme Court Decision on Cannabis Upholds International Law] ]

Not long after the decision in "Raich", the Court vacated a lower court decision in "United States v. Stewart" and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of "Raich". In "Stewart", the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns.

In Congress, in order to counter the effect of this ruling, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduce legislation to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients. [ [http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr060905.cfm In Wake of Supreme Court Ruling, Dozens of Newspaper Editorials Nationwide call on Legislators To Support Federal Amendment to Protect Medical Marijuana Patients] ] This effort has not yet succeeded, as most members of Congress voted against the bill. [ [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll333.xml FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 333] ]

In 2007, the Ninth Circuit decided against Angel Raich, when she renewed her litigation on substantive due process grounds. Judge Harry Pregerson, the author of the opinion, noted that only a minority of states legalized medical marijuana and it is not a recognized "fundamental right" under the due process clause. However, Pregerson also wrote that she could use medical necessity individually if she ever gets arrested for using medical marijuana.

ee also

*Legal history of marijuana in the United States
* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545
*"Wickard v. Filburn"

External links

* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html Majority opinion in the case, delivered by Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.]
* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html Justice Scalia's separate concurrence.]
* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD.html Dissenting opinion, delivered by O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist and partially joined by Thomas.]
* [http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html Justice Thomas's separate dissent.]
* [http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/Sup665.htm Decision Examination]
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1454 Findlaw.com - All Opinions]
*Opposing the government:
** David Morris, "AlterNet", June 15, 2005, [http://www.alternet.org/story/22221/ The Sainted Clause]
** [http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner11272004.html Pot Shots on Counterpunch.org] Journalistic article on the arguments, case.
** [http://angeljustice.org/ Angel Raich's web site on the case] . Includes all the [http://www.angeljustice.org/article.php?list=type&type=11 legal briefs]
** [http://raich-v-ashcroft.com raich-v-ashcroft.com] . Older Angel Raich site.
** [http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/113004abrahamson.cfm A Drug Policy Alliance article on the case]
*Favoring the government:
** [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/Ashcrofts%20Merit%20Brief%20Sup%20Court.pdf Federal government's legal brief to the Supreme Court (from Angel's web site)]
** [http://www.angeljustice.org/downloads/Drug%20Free%20America%20brief.pdf Amicus brief from Drug Free America Foundation and others (submitted to Supreme Court) (from Angel's web site)]
** [http://www.incb.org/incb/press_release_2005-06-08_1.html INCB: US Supreme Court Decision on Cannabis Upholds International Law] , International Narcotics Control Board, June 8, 2005.

References