 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
| Gonzales v. Raich | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 29, 2004 Decided June 6, 2005 | |
| Full case name | Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et al. |
| Citations | 545 U.S. 1 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2195; 162 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4656; 73 U.S.L.W. 4407; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Raich v. Ashcroft, 248 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D. Cal.), rev'd, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 542 U.S. 936 (2004) |
| Subsequent | None |
| Holding | |
| Congress may ban the use of cannabis even if states approve it for medicinal purposes. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment) |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas (all but Part III) |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, 18 (the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses); Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971 (2000); California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, California Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2005) | |
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.[1]
- ^ Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search