Gonzales v. Raich
| Gonzales v. Raich | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 29, 2004 Decided June 6, 2005 |
|
| Full case name | Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et al. |
| Citations | 545 U.S. 1 (more)
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
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | 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 history | None |
| Holding | |
| Congress may ban the use of cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist (part I, II), Thomas (parts I, II) |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| 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 decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the use of medical marijuana. The Federal government of the United States 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 destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's marijuana plants, facing light resistance. The marijuana plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Raich sued, claiming that enforcing Federal law against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the doctrine of medical necessity.
...
Wikipedia