Gonzales v Raich case brief
Brittany Porter
Intro to Legal Concepts
Prof. Morris
11 September 2010
Case Brief – Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Citation – Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005 U.S. Sup.)
Judge – Scalia, J.
Case or Procedural History – Wickard v. Filburn decided that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial”, or produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that community
Facts – Respondents, Raich and Monson, had both been prescribed medical marijuana. Both need it now for daily function, Raich has a medical addiction. Monson grows her own cannabis. Federal Agents seized and destroyed her cannabis plants.
Rule – Federal Controlled Substance Act prevents them from possessing, obtaining or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use.
Issue – Congress’ power to regulate interstate markets for medical substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs that are produced and consumed locally.
Holding – Users of marijuana for medical purposes did not violate the Commerce Clause
Reasoning – Wickard, an extremely similar case, establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial”, or produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that community. Gonzales and Wickard and similar in that they both are cultivating, for home consumption, and for which there in an interstate market.
Criticism – Regulation is within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market.
Intro to Legal Concepts
Prof. Morris
11 September 2010
Case Brief – Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Citation – Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005 U.S. Sup.)
Judge – Scalia, J.
Case or Procedural History – Wickard v. Filburn decided that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial”, or produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that community
Facts – Respondents, Raich and Monson, had both been prescribed medical marijuana. Both need it now for daily function, Raich has a medical addiction. Monson grows her own cannabis. Federal Agents seized and destroyed her cannabis plants.
Rule – Federal Controlled Substance Act prevents them from possessing, obtaining or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use.
Issue – Congress’ power to regulate interstate markets for medical substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs that are produced and consumed locally.
Holding – Users of marijuana for medical purposes did not violate the Commerce Clause
Reasoning – Wickard, an extremely similar case, establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial”, or produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that community. Gonzales and Wickard and similar in that they both are cultivating, for home consumption, and for which there in an interstate market.
Criticism – Regulation is within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market.