Advertisement
Raich case ruling: Feds can enforce marijuana laws against patients, but state laws remain in effect
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that federal officials may arrest and prosecute medical marijuana users and providers even in states where it is legal. The decision in Gonzales v. Raich returns California and other Western states to the situation that held before plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson won a 2003 injunction at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco barring federal officials from raiding or prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers in California and other medical marijuana states within the jurisdiction of the appeals court. In Monday's ruling, the court overturned the 9th Circuit, holding the Constitution's interstate commerce clause could be employed to allow the federal government to claim jurisdiction over medical marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act.
Monson and Raich are both medical marijuana users. Monson uses it for chronic back pain, while Raich uses it to treat a staggering array of illnesses and conditions, including a life-threatening brain tumor. Monson grew her own until she was raided in 2002 and her supply was seized by federal DEA agents ? over the objection of California police officers. Raich was too ill to grow her own and relied on two anonymous caregivers to provide her supply. The pair sued the Justice Department for relief, seeking an injunction in the hopes that they could take their medicine without fear of arrest or prosecution.
The 6-3 decision saw an unusual split in the court, with conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who in previous cases involving gun control and violence against women had come down against a sweeping interpretation of the commerce clause and in favor of states' rights, this time coming down on the other side of the issue. Scalia and Kennedy joined "liberal bloc" Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens in the majority, while Chief Justice William Rehnquist was joined in the dissent by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas.
It is worth pointing out that although the Supreme Court claimed federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause, the marijuana in question was homegrown, not sold or purchased, and never left the state of California. In other words, as the English language is commonly understood, it was neither interstate nor commerce.
But citing a 1942 Supreme Court case where the court held that a farmer who grew wheat for his family's use affected interstate wheat markets, the court Monday held patients growing their own marijuana affected the interstate marijuana market. When thus defined as affecting interstate commerce, the noncommercial, intrastate use of medical marijuana can be constitutionally regulated by federal law, in this case the Controlled Substances Act, the majority held.
In both the wheat case and Monday's case, "the regulation is squarely within Congress's commerce power because production of the commodity meant for consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Justice Stevens wrote for the majority.
And with Congress thus having the power to regulate in-state, non-commercial medical marijuana, it is free to use the drug laws to do so. "The Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case," Stevens wrote. Even though the decision was made difficult by Raich and Monson's "strong arguments they will suffer irreparable harm" if denied medical marijuana, "well-settled law controls our answer."
"To be sure," he added in a footnote, "the wheat market is a lawful market that Congress sought to protect and stabilize, whereas the marijuana market is an unlawful market that Congress sought to eradicate. The difference, however, is of no constitutional import."
While Stevens and the majority ruled against Raich and Monson, they expressed a measure of sympathy for medical marijuana. There were other legal options for patients, Stevens wrote, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
In her dissent, joined in most points by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, Justice O'Connor wrote that the federal government was attempting to usurp powers that should be reserved for the states. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," Justice O'Connor wrote. The court should have deferred to California's judgment in the matter, she added, noting that the state "has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering."
Writing a separate dissent, Justice Thomas warned that the court was stretching the reach of the commerce clause too far. Noting that Raich and Monson's medical marijuana never reached the market and had no "demonstrable" effect on it, he wrote: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/390/raichruling.shtml
Monson and Raich are both medical marijuana users. Monson uses it for chronic back pain, while Raich uses it to treat a staggering array of illnesses and conditions, including a life-threatening brain tumor. Monson grew her own until she was raided in 2002 and her supply was seized by federal DEA agents ? over the objection of California police officers. Raich was too ill to grow her own and relied on two anonymous caregivers to provide her supply. The pair sued the Justice Department for relief, seeking an injunction in the hopes that they could take their medicine without fear of arrest or prosecution.
The 6-3 decision saw an unusual split in the court, with conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who in previous cases involving gun control and violence against women had come down against a sweeping interpretation of the commerce clause and in favor of states' rights, this time coming down on the other side of the issue. Scalia and Kennedy joined "liberal bloc" Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens in the majority, while Chief Justice William Rehnquist was joined in the dissent by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas.
It is worth pointing out that although the Supreme Court claimed federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause, the marijuana in question was homegrown, not sold or purchased, and never left the state of California. In other words, as the English language is commonly understood, it was neither interstate nor commerce.
But citing a 1942 Supreme Court case where the court held that a farmer who grew wheat for his family's use affected interstate wheat markets, the court Monday held patients growing their own marijuana affected the interstate marijuana market. When thus defined as affecting interstate commerce, the noncommercial, intrastate use of medical marijuana can be constitutionally regulated by federal law, in this case the Controlled Substances Act, the majority held.
In both the wheat case and Monday's case, "the regulation is squarely within Congress's commerce power because production of the commodity meant for consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Justice Stevens wrote for the majority.
And with Congress thus having the power to regulate in-state, non-commercial medical marijuana, it is free to use the drug laws to do so. "The Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case," Stevens wrote. Even though the decision was made difficult by Raich and Monson's "strong arguments they will suffer irreparable harm" if denied medical marijuana, "well-settled law controls our answer."
"To be sure," he added in a footnote, "the wheat market is a lawful market that Congress sought to protect and stabilize, whereas the marijuana market is an unlawful market that Congress sought to eradicate. The difference, however, is of no constitutional import."
While Stevens and the majority ruled against Raich and Monson, they expressed a measure of sympathy for medical marijuana. There were other legal options for patients, Stevens wrote, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
In her dissent, joined in most points by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, Justice O'Connor wrote that the federal government was attempting to usurp powers that should be reserved for the states. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," Justice O'Connor wrote. The court should have deferred to California's judgment in the matter, she added, noting that the state "has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering."
Writing a separate dissent, Justice Thomas warned that the court was stretching the reach of the commerce clause too far. Noting that Raich and Monson's medical marijuana never reached the market and had no "demonstrable" effect on it, he wrote: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/390/raichruling.shtml