Changes

{{caselaw|Gonzales v. Raich|545 U.S. 1|2005}}

{{caselaw|Gonzales v. Raich|545 U.S. 1|2005}}

Gonzales v. Raich was a landmark [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision written by Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] upholding the application of [[federal]] law against marijuana cultivation to a purely local (intrastate) activity in California.  By a 6-3 majority, the Court held that the [[Commerce Clause]] does grant [[Congress]] the authority to prohibit the growing of large amounts of marijuana even if legal under state law.  In this case [[California]] permitted marijuana growth for allegedly medical purposes.

'''Gonzales v. Raich''' was a landmark [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision written by Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] upholding the application of [[federal]] law against marijuana cultivation to a purely local (intrastate) activity in California.  By a 6-3 majority, the Court held that the [[Commerce Clause]] does grant [[Congress]] the authority to prohibit the growing of large amounts of marijuana even if legal under state law.  In this case [[California]] permitted marijuana growth for allegedly medical purposes.

The Court held that "Congress acted rationally" in declining to adopt a medical-marijuana exception to the generally applicable federal ban on manufacture, possession, and sale.  ''Gonzales v. Raich'', 125 S. Ct. 2195, 2211 (2005).  "The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition, and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected."  ''Id.'' at 2213.

The Court held that "Congress acted rationally" in declining to adopt a medical-marijuana exception to the generally applicable federal ban on manufacture, possession, and sale.  ''Gonzales v. Raich'', 125 S. Ct. 2195, 2211 (2005).  "The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition, and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected."  ''Id.'' at 2213.

This decision represented an unusual disagreement between Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], who sided with the majority, and Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], who sided with the dissent.

This decision represented an unusual disagreement between Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], who sided with the majority, and Justice [[Clarence Thomas]], who sided with the dissent.