Real Crime/Paranormal/Conspiracy Theories Book III

Gonzalez v. Raich

Gonzales v. Raich(previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was adecision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under theCommerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize theproduction and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows itsuse for medicinal purposes.

Background

California voters passed Proposition215 in 1996, legalizing the use of medical marijuana. The Federalgovernment of the United States has limited the use of marijuanasince the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.

Defendant Angel Raich used homegrownmedical marijuana, which was legal under California law but illegalunder federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff'sDepartment officers and agents from the federal Drug EnforcementAdministration destroyed all six of California resident DianeMonson's marijuana plants, facing light resistance. The marijuanaplants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal ControlledSubstances Act (CSA), which is Title II of the Comprehensive DrugAbuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Raich sued,claiming that enforcing Federal law against them would violate theCommerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, theNinth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the doctrine of medicalnecessity.

Raich's physician stated that withoutmarijuana, Raich is threatened by excruciating pain. California wasone of 14 states at the time (36 as of 2021) that allowed medicinaluse of marijuana. California's Compassionate Use Act allows limiteduse of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Raich and Monson's case

Raich of Oakland, California, Monson ofOroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued thegovernment for injunctive and declaratory relief on October 9, 2002,to stop the government from interfering with their right to produceand use medical marijuana claiming that the CSA was notconstitutional, as applied to their conduct. Raich and Monson wererepresented by Randy Barnett.

Raich claimed she used marijuana tokeep herself alive. She and her doctor claimed to have tried dozensof prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions andthat she was allergic to most of them. Her doctor declared under oaththat Raich's life was at stake if she could not continue to usemarijuana. Monson suffered from chronic pain from a car accident adecade before the case. She used marijuana to relieve the pain andmuscle spasms around her spine.

Government's case

The Controlled Substances Act does notrecognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the federal DrugEnforcement Administration were assigned to break up California'smedical marijuana co-ops and to seize their assets. That was resultof the fact that federal law pre-empted, under the Supremacy Clause,the law of California. The government argued that if a singleexception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would becomeunenforceable in practice. The government also contended thatconsuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affectsthe interstate market of marijuana and the federal government maythus regulate and prohibit such consumption.

That argument stems from the landmarkNew Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that thegovernment may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of cropsbecause of the aggregate effect of individual consumption on thegovernment's legitimate statutory framework governing the interstatewheat market.