Raich Case as Much About Federalism as About Medical Marijuana 12/3/04

Drug War Chronicle, recent top items

more...

recent blog posts "In the Trenches" activist feed

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!!!


http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/365 /raich.shtml

Monday's oral arguments in Ashcroft v. Raich, where the Supreme Court took up the case of two California medical marijuana patients, featured much discussion of the merits of medical marijuana. But that wasn't the issue the Supreme Court needed to decide. While the Supreme Court's decision will determine whether Angel Raich, Diane Monson, and other medical marijuana patients can take their medicine without fear of federal raiders, this case is ultimately about federalism and states' rights.

The United States Supreme Court
The key issue at play is the reach of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, which the courts have interpreted as allowing the federal government dominion over any activity that has an impact on commerce between the states. The question in Raich is whether the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bars the use of marijuana without exception, can constitutionally apply to expressly non-commercial cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes within California in compliance with California law. The controlling case here is an oldie, the 1942 Wickard case, in which the New Deal era Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania farmer who consumed the wheat he grew on his own land did in fact have an impact on interstate commerce.

But in recent years, the Rehnquist Court has whittled back the scope of the interstate commerce clause, most strikingly in two cases from the mid-1990s. In one, the Court held unconstitutional a federal law punishing gun possession near schools; in the other, the Court held unconstitutional the Violence Against Women Act. In both cases, the Court found that the link between the acts the laws were intended to punish and interstate commerce were so tenuous that the commerce clause did not apply. In those cases, the Court scaled back Wickard to regulations that involve "economic activity," which the Court has not defined, but appears to mean activities that are part of a process leading to sale or barter.

From the moment acting Solicitor General Paul Greenlee began his oral argument, the issue of whether intrastate, noncommercial activity (growing and smoking medical marijuana) was "economic activity" governed by Wickard was at the fore. Justice O'Connor questioned whether the Court's decisions in the 1990s cases had any impact on this case, given that "this substance was not in a national market or in any intrastate market, unlike the activity at issue in those cases."

"Marijuana is a fungible product and there is a national market in this drug," Clement responded.

Justice Ginsburg challenged Clement: "This is not commercial activity, is it?"

"This is economic activity, but not commercial activity," Clement argued. "It is like the production of wheat."

When Raich attorney Randy Barnett had his turn, the give-and-take followed similar lines. "May it please the Court, I have two points," Barnett began. "The first point is that the activity involved here is wholly intrastate and non-economic in nature. The second point is that regulation of this activity is not essential to a broader regulatory scheme."

Here Barnett raised a key point. A second line of defense for the government is that even if intrastate use of medical marijuana is not an "economic activity," if allowing it to occur would interfere with a legitimate federal regulatory function, that could be a reason to rule in the government's favor. As Barnett put it, "The federal government can only reach non-economic activity if the state's authorization of that activity would undermine a broader scheme for the regulation of interstate commerce. The state statute isolates medical cannabis from the larger recreational market."

Court watchers are notoriously uneager to attempt to divine how the Supreme Court will rule, but a few brave souls have taken a shot at it. "So how will Ashcroft v. Raich come out?," asked University of San Diego law professor Lawrence Solum on his Legal Theory blog (http://www.lsolum.blogspot.com). "I don't know. I got a sense that O'Connor, Ginsburg, and perhaps Stevens were quite sympathetic to the respondents. Based on his questions, Justice Kennedy seemed quite favorable to the government. One would guess that Justice Thomas will be the hardest member of the Court for the government to win. One might also guess that it will be hard for the petitioners to win Souter or Bryer, who both are very skeptical of Lopez and Morrison. Justice Rehnquist is hard to call. We didn't hear from him. One suspects he is both pro-federalism/state power and pro-federal regulation of drugs. One can imagine this case coming out 5-4 either way. Before argument, I would have said it could be 9-0 either way, but if I allow myself the dangerous pleasure of reading the tea leaves, I now think that is unlikely."

Findlaw columnist Marci Hamilton was a little braver. After discussing how Raich differs from the controlling case, Wickard, Hamilton gave her bottom line: "In sum, given all these significant distinctions between Wickard and Raich, the Court could easily hold that while Congress did not exceed its Commerce Clause power by regulating home wheat use, it did exceed its Commerce Clause power by regulating intrastate medical marijuana."

Slate senior editor and Supreme Court watcher Dahlia Lithwick, somewhat cynically, came to the opposite conclusion. "Should the court's staunchest conservatives get away with being for states' rights only when the state in question isn't California?" she asked. "No. Will they? Oh, you can bet your bong on it."

Several major newspapers were also pessimistic about Raich's prospects. "States' Rights Defense Falters in Medical Marijuana Case," read the New York Times headline. "Justices React Skeptically to Medical Marijuana Arguments," ran the San Jose Mercury News headline.

Oakland attorney Robert Raich, husband of plaintiff Angel Raich, who has, unsurprisingly, followed the case closely from the beginning, remained cautiously optimistic. "You can't predict how the justices are going to vote on the basis of the questions they asked, but one thing we can tell is that they are definitely familiar with this case and have done their homework."

Raich raised an important point about the implications of a loss at the Supreme Court. "Even if we should lose, this would still have no effect on patients in the states that have medical marijuana laws," he told DRCNet. "Those laws would remain in full force and effect, protecting patients from harassment from state and local authorities. That's important, because 99% of arrests are by state and local authorities. A bad ruling would have no effect on the vast majority of patients. On the other hand, if we win, it will be a tremendous victory for patients all over the country because they will know they can have the medicine they need."

A decision in the case is expected in July.

-- END --
Link to Drug War Facts
Please make a generous donation to support Drug War Chronicle in 2007!          

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Issue #365 , 12/3/04

Drug War Chronicle, recent top items

more...

recent blog posts "In the Trenches" activist feed

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!!!

DRCNet Event: Rep. Barney Frank to Keynote for Perry Fund Forum/Fundraiser, December 9, 2004, Boston | DEA Retraction of Pain FAQ Angers, Scares Doctors and Patients | Hurwitz Trial Update and Call for Support | Raich Case as Much About Federalism as About Medical Marijuana | Medical Marijuana at the Supreme Court -- a Taste of the Day's Events | Top Cops Say Drug War a Flop in Two New Surveys | Newsbrief: Group Can Display Marijuana Reform Ads, Federal Court Rules | Newsbrief: Supreme Court Puts Hold on Religious Ayahuasca Use | Newsbrief: Delaware Legislature to Take Up Needle Exchange Again | Newsbrief: Britain's Brave New World of Drug Testing Gets Underway | Newsbrief: Afghan Opium Farmers Claim They Are Being Sprayed With Pesticides | Newsbrief: Drug Policy Alliance Rejects Grant Over Anti-Terror Clause | Newsbrief: Federal Sentencing Guidelines Fill Prisons With Blacks, Hispanics, Study Finds | This Week's Corrupt Cops Story | This Week in History | New Harm Reduction Grant Program for Activism and Policy By and for Drug Users | Apply Now to Intern at DRCNet! | Drugwarmarket.Com Seeking Information, Affiliations, Link Exchanges | The Reformer's Calendar

Mail this article to a friend
Send us feedback on this article
This issue -- main page
This issue -- single-file printer version
Drug War Chronicle -- main page
Chronicle archives
Subscribe now!
Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en EspaŮol Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home
Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em PortuguÍs Latest News Drug Library Search
special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts

StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]