Ashcroft v. Raich
In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, which provides seriously ill Californians “the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes” once a physician has deemed the use beneficial to the patient’s health. The Compassionate Use Act, however, directly conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., which makes the manufacture and possession of marijuana illegal.
Raich is a California citizen who has used marijuana for the last five years under the Compassionate Use Act. She has been diagnosed with more than ten serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder, and several chronic pain disorders. According to her physician, Raich has tried “essentially all other legal alternatives” to marijuana with no success. Due to Raich’s condition, she is unable to cultivate her own marijuana. She relies on her caretakers, John Doe Number One and John Doe Number Two, to grow it for her. Her caretakers allege they use only products originating within California to produce the marijuana.
Fearing raids and prosecution by the government, Raich sued the U.S. Attorney General seeking injunctive and declaratory relief based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the CSA. The district court denied Raich’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding the application of the CSA to Raich was likely unconstitutional and that she made a “strong showing of the likelihood of success on the merits.” The court reached its holding by relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Lopez and Morrison. Following Lopez, the court found that Congress could regulate Raich’s activities under the Commerce Clause only if her activities “substantially affected interstate commerce.” Applying the four-factor test established in Morrison, the court held that “the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of [marijuana] for personal medical purposes” probably did not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore the CSA, as applied to Raich, was likely unconstitutional.
Question Presented:
Whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for
purported personal “medicinal” use or to the distribution of marijuana without charge for such use.
Commentary by Professor Neil Siegel, published in the News & Observer
