Gonzales v. Raich
E8365
Gonzales v. Raich is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal power to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana under the Commerce Clause, even when states permit it for medical purposes.
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
→
federal court case → |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
→
drug law → federal criminal law → |
| arguedDate |
2004-11-29
→
|
| citation |
125 S. Ct. 2195
→
162 L. Ed. 2d 1 → 545 U.S. 1 → |
| concurrenceBy |
Antonin Scalia
→
|
| constitutionalProvision |
Commerce Clause
→
Necessary and Proper Clause → |
| court |
Supreme Court of the United States
→
|
| decidedBy |
Rehnquist Court
→
|
| decisionDate |
2005-06-06
→
|
| dissentBy |
Clarence Thomas
→
Sandra Day O’Connor → William H. Rehnquist → |
| docketNumber |
03-1454
→
|
| fullCaseName |
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al.
→
|
| holding |
Congress may prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana under the Commerce Clause even if state law authorizes its use for medical purposes.
→
|
| impact |
expanded understanding of Congress’s power over intrastate activities affecting interstate markets
→
limited practical effect of state medical marijuana exemptions against federal enforcement → |
| joinedMajority |
Anthony Kennedy
→
David Souter → Ruth Bader Ginsburg → Stephen Breyer → |
| jurisdiction |
United States
→
|
| legalIssue |
federalism
→
medical marijuana regulation → scope of the Commerce Clause → |
| majorityOpinionBy |
John Paul Stevens
→
|
| overruled |
no
→
|
| petitioner |
Alberto R. Gonzales
→
|
| precedentStatus |
binding on all lower federal courts
→
|
| priorCaseReliedOn |
Wickard v. Filburn
→
|
| relatedCase |
United States v. Lopez
→
United States v. Morrison → |
| relatedConcept |
supremacy of federal law over conflicting state law
→
|
| respondent |
Angel McClary Raich
→
Diane Monson → |
| result |
federal prohibition on marijuana possession and cultivation upheld
→
|
| stateInvolved |
California
→
|
| stateLawContext |
California medical marijuana law
→
|
| statuteInterpreted |
Controlled Substances Act
→
|
| subjectMatter |
conflict between federal and state drug laws
→
federal regulation of marijuana → |
| vote |
6-3
→
|
Referenced by (8)
| Subject (surface form when different) | Predicate |
|---|---|
|
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
→
|
citedIn |
|
substantial effects doctrine
→
|
citedInCase |
|
Gonzales v. Raich
("Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al.")
→
|
fullCaseName |
|
Commerce Clause
→
|
interpretedInCase |
|
Necessary and Proper Clause
→
|
majorCase |
|
Angel McClary Raich
→
|
partyInLawsuit |
|
Gibbons v. Ogden
→
|
precedentFor |
|
United States v. Lopez
→
|
subsequentCitationIn |