Gonzales v. Raich

In Gonzales v. Raich the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision which ruled that the seizure by federal agents of two individual’s personal marijuana plants grown for the purpose of medicinal consumption, permitted in the state of California, was constitutionally justified. According to the court, it was necessary and proper to seize these plants under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which falls under congress’ constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

However the argument that the two instances in this case fall under the category of interstate commerce is absurd. The plaintiffs, Dianne Monson and Angel Raich, both grew a minute number of cannabis plants within their homes, and personally consumed the cannabis as prescribed by their physicians to assist in the treatment of ailments in which they suffer from. They never bought nor sold the cannabis, nor did it ever cross state lines. As Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent, "at the time of the founding, the term " ‘commerce consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes" and "commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture." With this in mind the activities in this case do not constitute intrastate commerce, let alone interstate commerce.

Yet this irrefutable fact does not stop the majority from ruling that the federal government’s actions under the CSA still fall within congress’ regulatory powers enumerated in the commerce clause. In the majority and concurring opinions, the court opines that the CSA, and actions taken by federal agents under the authority of the CSA, fall under congress’ authority in the necessary and proper clause, which gives congress the authority to enact any laws or measures necessary in executing it’s powers. Under the court’s rationale, it is necessary to regulate non-commercial activities such as the ones in this case so that congress can fully exercise it’s power to regulate interstate commerce. In essence, the court believes that non-commercial activity such as the personal growth and consumption of marijuana affects the greater, interstate cannabis market, and thus congress and the federal government have regulatory authority over such activities under the commerce clause.

Not only is the court’s ruling an abuse of the commerce clause, but it is also an infringement on the federalist principles laid out in the 10th Amendment, which states, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The activities in this case were and are not commercial, and have no relevance or effect upon the interstate cannabis market. Therefore congress has no right to regulate or interfere with such activity, with that power only belonging to the individual states. If this no longer remains true and congress can regulate anything and everything under the Commerce Clause, then as Justice Thomas put it, "the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Hat Tip: WSJ, Jonathan H. Adler, Amber Golding & Hofstetter