Gonzales v. Raich

Ashcroft v. Raich is an ongoing case in the Supreme Court of the United States, which relates to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States."

John Ashcroft is in the case's name as he was Attorney General when the case was filed.

The case

The case deals with the Controlled Substances Act and medical marijuana. The fundamental question is: is the Controlled Substances Act a constitutional use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution? The 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn is cited as an important influence.

Background

California passed a medical marijuana act in Proposition 215 of 1996. The federal government opposes all use of medical marijuana.

The case of Angel Raich and Diane Monson against the government

Angel Raich of Oakland, California, Diane Monson of Oroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued the government on October 9, 2002 to stop the government from interfering with their right to medical marijuana.

The marijuana Angel Raich uses is homegrown, and is thus allowed under California law, but not under federal law. Diane Monson grew her own in her garden. Agents of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration raided her land and seized and destroyed her marijuana crop in August 2002. Raich and Monson sued for injunctive and declaratory relief in October 2002, claiming that the Controlled Substances Act is not constitutional as applied to their conduct.

The US Federal Government's power within states is limited by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which grants only the power to regulate "commerce", and only commerce that occurs between or "...among the several States, ..." or countries. Raich argues that her conduct of possessing medical marijuana and receiving it for free from compassionate gardeners is not commerce. Neither she nor Monson pays for their marijuana, and neither gets it from another state. Even the soil, seeds, nutrients, lumber, and such used to grow the marijuana are obtained from California.

Angel Raich uses marijuana to keep herself alive. She and her doctor have tried dozens of prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions. She is allergic to most of them. Her doctor declared under oath that her life is at stake if she cannot continue to use marijuana. Diane Monson suffers from chronic pain due to a car accident a decade ago. She uses marijuana to relieve the pain and muscle spasms around her spine. Avoidance of death and the medical alleviation of pain and suffering are long-recognized fundamental human rights, which cannot be infringed by the government without good cause.

The government's case

The United States Federal law, via the Controlled Substances Act, does not recognize and opposes medical marijuana. They sent federal agents into to break up California's medical marijuana co-ops, and seize their assets. They feel federal law supersedes that of California. Another argument is that if a single exception is made to the Controlled Substances Act, it will become unenforceable in practice.

The United States is a federation, with most powers in the state governments. Many expansions of federal power that started during the New Deal in the 1930s were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States, until President Franklin Delano Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to double the number of judges on the Court, and fill it sympathetic judges. The Court found excuses for upholding new expansions of federal power. Wickard v. Filburn was one of these cases, which ruled that federal crop price controls reached even the wheat grown on a rural farm to be fed to the owners and their farm animals. The rationale was that growing your own wheat is "commerce" because if you didn't grow it, you would have had to buy it from someone. This case stood as the tombstone on the "limited" commerce power for sixty years, until the 1990s when several small federal laws were struck down as exceeding the commerce power.

Litigation

On December 16, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a prelimary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with Angel and Diane. Part of their ruling follows:

We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA [note: the Controlled Substances Act] is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority.

Conclusions

All legal briefs have been filed. Oral argument occurred on November 29, 2004 (transcript). A decision is expected by spring.

See also:

• Wickard v. Filburn

External links and references

(opposing the government)

• Angel Raich's web site on the case. Includes all the legal briefs
• raich-v-ashcroft.com. Older Angel Raich site.
• A Drug Policy Alliance article on the case

(favoring the government)

• Federal government's legal brief to the Supreme Court (from Angel's web site)
• Amicus brief from Drug Free America Foundation and others (submitted to Supreme Court) (from Angel's web site)