Gonzalez v Raich - Case PDF

Preview

Summary

Case...

Description

Gonzales v Raich Student Name: Michael Rouzer Statement of Facts: Although federal statutes and nearly all states’ laws criminalize marijuana possession and sale, a 1996 California statute made California the first state to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. California residents Angel Raich and Diane Monson suffered from serious medical conditions. After prescribing numerous conventional medicines, physicians had concluded that marijuana was the only effective treatment for Raich and Monson. Both women had been using marijuana as a medication pursuant to their doctors’ recommendations, and both relied heavily on marijuana so that they could function without extreme pain. Monson cultivated her own marijuana. Two caregivers provided Raich with locally grown marijuana at no charge. In 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson’s home. Although the deputies concluded that Monson’s use of marijuana was lawful under California law, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants. Procedural History: Raich and Monson sued the Attorney General and the DEA in an effort to obtain an injunction barring enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), to the extent that it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use in accordance with California law. The federal district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, directed the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the CSA against Raich and Monson (often referred to below as respondents). The U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Wheat Case: Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. Issues: Does the federal enforcement of the CSA violate the Constitutions Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Holding: Court of Appeals decision vacated; case remanded for further proceedings. Reasoning: Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions. 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. Result/Application: If the patients want a change they should look to fight the scheduling of marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Even if small amounts are grown locally it will still effect the interstate commerce....