Commerce Clause: Intrastate acts. The federal Controlled Substances Act(Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug. The Act states Schedule I drugs have: "...no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." Such drugs are considered:"the most dangerous... with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and / or physical dependence"

In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act which legalized marijuana for medical use. Angel Raich possessed "medical-marijuana" pursuant to a doctor's prescription. The Drug and Enforcement Agency raided Angel Raich's home and seized her marijuana.

Raich and others sued Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. Attorney General, alleging the Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, among other constitutional grounds, and requested a preliminary injunction. Raich's doctor testified Raich, who was suffering with an inoperable and terminal brain tumor, is allergic to most prescription medicines and her life would be in danger without marijuana.

The District Court denied the request for a preliminary injunction, concluding plaintiffs could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their legal claims. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed and ordered the District Court to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with appellants(plaintiffs), finding they had demonstrated a "demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that... the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause authority."

The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices split a 6-3 decision with liberal and conservation justices in both the majority and the dissent. One Justice wrote: "This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "power delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

In 2009 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., issued new enforcement guidelines with the following statement "it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana." In 2012, Raich was reportedly expelled from a hospital for using medical marijuana.

Questions:

1. Compare and contrast this case to Wickard v, Filburn

2. Does Raich’s possession of marijuana affect interstate commerce of a legal nature? Explain.

3. Analyze this case as if the real legal issue was the Supremacy Clause.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Wickard v. Filburn

This case is set at the end of the Great Depression of the 1930s during which agriculture almost collapsed, and the beginning of World War II in which the government had a strong interest in regulating prices to support industries critical to the war effort. The Agricultural Act of 1938 limited the area on which farmers could grow wheat to stabilize both production and prices.

Roscoe Filburn, a farmer in Ohio, admittedly had been growing wheat to be consumed by himself, his family and his animals. He argued the excess wheat was for his private consumption, never entered commerce, and therefore could not be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

The Secretary of Agriculture ordered Filburn to pay a fine. A federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn and issued an injunction. The government appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court which unanimously ruled in favor of the government’s power to regulate local and personal production of wheat under the Commerce Clause. This means the government may forbid a dairy farmer from raising wheat on his own land for consumption by his own animals and his own family.

The rationale: if he is required to purchase his wheat requirements on the market, then he, and thousands of farmers like him, are helping to support the market price of wheat, an important government policy. By failing to purchase wheat on the market, the farmer affected interstate commerce. So while the farmer is not actually required to purchase wheat, he can choose not to, he may not grow his own.

The Court stated : “But even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whether its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce...”