Back More
Salem Press

Table of Contents

The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition

Gonzales v. Raich

by Thomas Tandy Lewis

Citation: 545 U.S. 11

Announced: June 6, 2005

Issues: Congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce; States’ reserved powers; Federalism

Relevant Amendments: Tenth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth

Brief summary: The Supreme Court recognized the federal government’s authority to enforce federal laws outlawing marijuana in all circumstances, even in those states that have legalized the substance for some medical purposes.

In 1996, California legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the so-called Compassionate Use Act, which was similar to the statutes in ten other states. All such statutes conflicted with the Federal Controlled Substance Act, which criminalized the possession of marijuana for any purpose. After agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed the marijuana and cannabis plants grown by Angel Raich in her garden, she joined with other concerned parties to sue the Attorney General and the DEA in federal district court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DEA’s application of the federal statute was unconstitutional insofar as it applied to the intrastate, noncommercial possession and cultivation of a substance for medical use as recommended by a physician. The court pointed to the U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000), in which the Supreme Court had held that federal power did not extend to the regulation of purely local activities. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the police powers to regulate such activities were reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, upheld the federal government’s position by a 6-3 vote. In the opinion for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the commerce clause empowered Congress to prohibit the local cultivation and use of controlled substances, despite state laws to the contrary. He argued that the commerce clause authorized Congress to regulate any “class of activities” that substantial affects interstate commerce. The case was different from Lopez, which related to a non-economic activity having no significant impact on interstate commerce. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, Stevens affirmed that Congress acted rationally in placing this class of activities within the larger regulatory scheme. He also found it irrelevant that the use of the marijuana was totally intrastate and involved no interstate trade as such.

Stevens’ opinion pointed to the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in which the Court had allowed the sanctioning of a farmer under the Agricultural Adjustment Act for growing an excessive amount of wheat beyond permissible limits, even though the wheat was for personal use and not to be sold in interstate commerce. The ruling in Wickard was based on the impact that the extra wheat would presumably have on the interstate market. The opinion distinguished Raich from the cases Lopez and Morrison on the grounds that these two cases were not aimed at conduct that affected commerce.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra O’Connor argued the Constitution did not empower Congress to criminalize the growing of “a small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use.” She wrote: “We enforce the ‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government.”

Also dissenting, Justice Clarence Thomas found that the federal statute violated the Tenth Amendment because it “encroached on the states’ traditional police powers to define the criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.” If congress can regulate the small-scale use of marijuana under the Commerce Clause, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” Thomas complained: “One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States.”

Citation Types

Type
Format
MLA 9th
Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Gonzales V. Raich." The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition, edited by Thomas Tandy Lewis, Salem Press, 2017. Salem Online, online.salempress.com/articleDetails.do?articleName=BOR2e_0288.
APA 7th
Lewis, T. T. (2017). Gonzales v. Raich. In T. T. Lewis (Ed.), The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition. Salem Press. online.salempress.com.
CMOS 17th
Lewis, Thomas Tandy. "Gonzales V. Raich." Edited by Thomas Tandy Lewis. The Bill of Rights, 2nd Edition. Hackensack: Salem Press, 2017. Accessed December 14, 2025. online.salempress.com.