Gonzales v. Raich Holding and Analysis Lindzy Hamel

What is the holding of the court? Holding I: “Raich's common law necessity defense is not foreclosed by Oakland Cannabis or the Controlled Substances Act, but that the necessity defense does not provide a proper basis for injunctive relief” (“Raich v. Gonzales”). Holding II: “Second, although changes in state law reveal a clear trend towards the protection of medical marijuana use, we hold that the asserted right has not yet gained the traction on a national scale to be deemed fundamental” (“Raich v. Gonzales”). Holding III: “Third, we hold that the Controlled Substances Act, a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power, does not violate the Tenth Amendment” (“Raich v. Gonzales”). Holding IV: “Finally, we decline to reach Raich's argument that the Controlled Substances Act, by its terms, does not prohibit her possession and use of marijuana because this argument was not raised below” (“Raich v. Gonzales”). “Raich v. Gonzales” http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th- circuit/1451522.html

What is the holding of the court? “Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law” (“Gonzales v. Raich”) Overall, the state law that allowed the growth/use of medical marijuana contradicted the federal law for controlled substances and therefore could not stand. “GONZALES V. RAICH.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03- 1454.ZS.html/

What is the court's reasoning for making its determination? “(Justice John Paul) Stevens argued that the Court's precedent ‘firmly established’ Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a ‘class of activities’ with a substantial effect on interstate commerce” (Gonzales v. Raich). The court’s majority decided that they had the power to ban medical marijuana because its’ growth played a role in the national marijuana market. The local growth/use of the marijuana ultimately affected the supply and demand of marijuana in state as well as in the national market, “making the regulation of intrastate use ‘essential’ to regulating the drug's national market” (Gonzales v. Raich). GONZALES v. RAICH http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000- 2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

What Constitutional, statutory, precedent, or other law does the court rely upon when making its determination? “The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This gives Congress the power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes’” (“Commerce Clause”). “The Commerce Clause has been used to justify the use of federal laws in matters that do not on their face implicate interstate trade or exchange” (“Commerce Clause”). This law allows Congress to regulate any goods, products, or services that cross state borders or could potentially effect the goods, products or services that cross the borders. Very broad law Almost anything could potentially be regulated under this law "Commerce Clause" http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

Arguments For Gonzales: The growing of marijuana was viewed on a much larger scale. If California/Congress allowed this person to grow marijuana, it would be difficult to prevent others from growing it. Eventually, they argue, this marijuana would be traded across state lines affecting interstate commerce. The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the use of medical marijuana.

Arguments In Raich’s defense: Raich and Monson were growing marijuana purely for their own medical use, not for economic gain through trade. The Controlled Substance Act should not apply to what Raich and Monson were doing. If the matter is intrastate, it should be decided by the state of California, not the federal government.

What did the court ultimately find persuasive when making its ruling? The court decided in this manner through the use of the Commerce Clause, or Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the federal government was able to prevent California from passing any further laws such as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

Bibliography "Commerce Clause." LII - Legal Information Institute. Northeastern Univ. School of Public Policy and School of Law, n.d. Web. 03 July 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause>. "GONZALES V. RAICH." LII - Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 29 Nov. 2004. Web. 03 July 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html/>. GONZALES v. RAICH. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 02 July 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000- 2009/2004/2004_03_1454/>. "Raich v. Gonzales." FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. N.p., 2012. Web. 3 July 2012. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1451522.html>.