Con Law IThe Commerce Power

Gonzales v. Raich

In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), 6 to 3, the Court upheld applying the federal Controlled Substances Act to marijuana grown at home for medical use under California law, relying on Wickard because the activity was part of a broader economic market Congress could regulate.

Not started Jump to practice

After Lopez and Morrison, some thought the Court was cutting back the commerce power broadly. Gonzales v. Raich (2005) showed where the limits stopped. The case involved a conflict between federal and state law on medical marijuana.

Why it works

The majority's logic is the same as Wickard's. Production of a commodity, even for home use, is economic activity, because it replaces purchases on the market. And when Congress regulates an entire market, the Necessary and Proper Clause lets it reach local pieces that would otherwise leave a gap in the scheme. Justice Scalia, who concurred in the judgment, emphasized that second point.

Key idea

Gonzales v. Raich (2005), 6 to 3: Congress may apply the Controlled Substances Act to marijuana grown at home for medical use under state law, because producing a commodity is economic activity that, in the aggregate, affects a national market Congress regulates comprehensively.

Worked example: Distinguishing Lopez

The plaintiffs argued their activity was local and noncommercial, like Lopez's gun. How did the majority distinguish Lopez?
  1. Lopez involved possession of a gun, not economic activity, and a single-subject criminal statute.
  2. Raich involved producing a commodity, which is economic activity.
  3. It also involved a comprehensive scheme regulating a whole national market, which local exceptions would undercut.

Answer: Economic activity within a comprehensive scheme. Lopez was distinguished, not overruled.

Worked example: What Raich did not decide

Did Raich hold that California's law was invalid or that states must punish medical marijuana?
  1. No. The case decided only whether federal law could be applied to the plaintiffs.
  2. States remain free to set their own criminal laws; federal and state law can differ.
  3. Whether to change federal law is a question for Congress.

Answer: Raich decided the reach of federal power, not the validity of the state law or the wisdom of either policy.

Common mistake

Thinking Raich overruled Lopez. The Court distinguished Lopez: Raich involved economic activity (producing a commodity) within a comprehensive regulatory scheme. Check: is the activity economic, and is it part of a market Congress regulates as a whole?

Notice the unusual line-up: Justice Scalia, often an advocate of limits on federal power, joined the result, and justices who often favor federal power formed the majority alongside him. The case shows that commerce clause votes do not always follow the patterns people expect.

This is an educational course, not legal advice.

Practice

Pass with 3 right answers, the last 2 in a row. Each right answer earns 3 XP.

Loading practice…

Builds on

Leads to

Sources and further reading

@teddyrookbook GitHub