Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Sources

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454

www.streetlaw.org/document/119

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html/

Dissenting Opinions

Significance

  • Justice O'Connor wrote a dissenting opinion that essentially stated the intervention of Congress in intrastate commerce issues would throw off the balance between federal and state government. She added that the effects on the national market were only assumed. Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed with this decision.
  • Justice Thomas wrote a different dissent that argued allowing Congress to regulate this local activity would give the federal government too powerful. He stressed that this decision could destroy limitations on the federal government.

This case set precedence by giving Congress the power to regulate intrastate commerce as long as it could have an impact on the national market. In this way, it limited individual citizens' rights.

Decision/Opinion Of The Supreme Court

  • The date for the majority decision was June 6, 2005.
  • The majority decision, written by Justice Stevens, was based mostly on Wickard V Filburn.
  • The court decided that Congress had the power to regulate intrastate commerce if it had an impact of the national market.
  • The court ruled in Gonzales's favor 6 to 3; Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Scalia, and Breyer made up the majority vote.
  • Scalia wrote a concurring opinion that stated enforcing the CSA was under within Congress's power under both the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause.

Gonzales V. Raich

By: Barbara Hartsock

Influencing Cases & Laws

  • Wickard V Filburn: Post-Great Depression court case that said defying laws for purely personal reasons could still affect others through the market and could still be regulated by Congress.
  • US V Lopez: Court case concerning gun laws that restricted Congress's control to channels of interstate commerce, things used in interstate commerce, or economic activities that affect interstate commerce.
  • Commerce Clause: This gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and international commerce.
  • Controlled Substances Act: This regulates the use and manufacture of drugs.

Gonzales V. Raich Basic Info

  • Decided: June 6, 2005
  • Plaintiff: The federal government (specifically the US District Court)
  • Defendants: Angel Raich and Diane Monson

(Raich on left with Monson on right)

(The Supreme Court Justices in 2006)

Constitutional Questions

  • General/Beginning Topic: Should medical marijuana be regulated by state or federal law?

Background

  • The Gonzales V. Raich Case addresses the Commerce Clause and its limitations.
  • The case also questions whether Congress has the power to limit local or intrastate drug laws, especially if they are legal under state law.
  • Angel Raich and Diane Monson lives in California and are allowed to have and use medical marijuana under the state's Compassionate Use Act.
  • The DEA (US Drug Enforcement Administration) raids Monson's home and destroys her six marijuana plants
  • They do this under the Controlled Substance Act (the CSA), a federal drug law that forbids making, having, or getting drugs, including marijuana.
  • Raich takes the issue to the US District Court, and they refuse to prohibit the enforcement of federal drug laws despite her situation.
  • Raich then appeals to the US Court of Appeals, and they ruled in her favor, saying that Congress couldn't regulate intrastate commerce.
  • The US District Court/government appeals to the Supreme Court.

Arguments For

The Plaintiff

Arguments For The Defendant

  • Like the Wickard V Filburn Case, production, distribution, and possession could still impact the national drug market and could still be seen as interstate commerce.
  • The government doesn't have a way to determine if marijuana is obtained illegally or not.
  • When medical marijuana patients grow, sell, or share medical marijuana, they are not engaging in economic activity.
  • Marijuana could easily cross state lines or be sold between states, making it interstate commerce.
  • Buying and selling marijuana is an economic activity.
  • This is a purely local activity, not an issue of interstate commerce.
  • Congress can still regulate illegal drug markets, but non-economic, legalized use of marijuana can't be regulated.
  • The federal government shouldn't be able to regulate California's decision.
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi