545 U.S. 1 (2005)
In 1996 California voters enacted the Compassionate Use Act authorizing limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes by seriously ill state residents upon a physician’s recommendation or approval.1 Angel Raich and Diane Monson, California residents suffering from serious medical conditions, began using marijuana after their licensed physicians determined that conventional medicines failed to provide relief and that marijuana was the only effective treatment available.2 Raich, unable to cultivate her own supply, relies on two caregivers who grow and provide locally grown marijuana at no charge, which she then processes into oils, balms, and foods.3 Monson cultivates her own marijuana plants and ingests the drug by smoking or vaporization.4
On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents arrived at Monson’s home.5 County officials concluded after investigation that Monson’s use complied with California law, but after a three-hour standoff the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants.6
Raich and Monson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Attorney General of the United States and the Administrator of the DEA.7 They sought injunctive and declaratory relief barring enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act to the extent it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for personal medical use, and they submitted affidavits describing their medical conditions, failed conventional treatments, and physicians’ recommendations.8
The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.9 A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enter the injunction.10 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.11
Whether Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law?12
Congress possesses authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely local activities that form part of an economic class of activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce.13 When Congress enacts a comprehensive regulatory scheme such as the CSA, it may regulate even intrastate noneconomic activity if there is a rational basis for concluding that failure to regulate the entire class would undercut the interstate market regulation.14 This principle was established in Wickard v. Filburn and reaffirmed in Perez v. United States.15
Yes. Raich and Monson cultivate or obtain locally grown marijuana solely for personal medical use under the Compassionate Use Act after their physicians determined that conventional treatments failed.16 The CSA’s closed regulatory system prohibits all manufacture and possession of Schedule I substances.17 Congress had a rational basis for concluding that exempting such homegrown medical use would leave a gaping hole in the national scheme.18
This conclusion is supported by findings on diversion risks and enforcement difficulties in distinguishing local from interstate marijuana.19 The situation parallels home-consumed wheat affecting the interstate wheat market in Wickard.20
Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment.22 He explained that Congress may regulate even noneconomic intrastate activity when doing so is reasonably adapted to making a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce effective under the Necessary and Proper Clause.23 The CSA’s prohibition on local medical marijuana is essential to preventing the interstate market in Schedule I substances from being undercut.24
Marijuana is a fungible commodity that cannot be segregated from the illicit market.25 Therefore the regulation must be sustained.26
Joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist And Justice Thomas As To All But Part Iii
Justice O’Connor dissented.27 She argued that the personal cultivation and possession of marijuana for medicinal use under state law is the conduct at issue.28 This activity is noneconomic and has not been shown to substantially affect interstate commerce.29
Allowing Congress to regulate such purely local activity by embedding it in a broad statute creates a perverse incentive for overbroad legislation.30 That approach erodes the federalist balance.31 It also prevents States from serving as laboratories for novel social experiments.32
Justice Thomas dissented.33 He maintained that respondents’ locally cultivated and consumed marijuana is neither interstate nor commerce under the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.34 Regulating it is not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the ban on interstate trafficking.35
The activity is distinct and state-regulated under California’s Compassionate Use Act.36 It produces no demonstrable effect on the national market.37 Congress therefore lacks enumerated power to reach purely intrastate personal conduct.38
Allowing such regulation would confer a general police power on Congress contrary to the Constitution’s design of limited and enumerated powers.39