Background on Gonzales v. Raich

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich (formerly known as Ashcroft v. Raich) — that the federal government can continue arresting patients who use medical marijuana legally under their state laws — stems from a case it heard in December 2004. At issue was whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit patients in medical marijuana states from using and/or growing marijuana that is not commercial in nature and which therefore does not involve interstate commerce.

The case was first launched in October 2002, when two medical marijuana patients — Angel Raich and Diane Monson — and two caregivers filed a motion asking a federal court to forbid the DEA from arresting them under federal law. They argued that their home use and cultivation of medical marijuana, which are legal under California state law, aren't commercial in nature and do not involve interstate commerce — and so therefore the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to prohibit what they're doing.

The U.S. district court in northern California ruled against Raich in March 2003, but then the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and ruled in favor of Raich in December 2003, shocking the nation. As a result of the Ninth Circuit ruling, Raich, Monson, and patients in similar circumstances were legally allowed to use medical marijuana under both state and federal law in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington (seven of the 10 medical marijuana states) until the date of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Bush administration appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the two patients and their caregivers — who are growing and using medical marijuana within California, using California seeds, California soil, California water, and California equipment – are somehow engaged in "interstate commerce." The administration also argued that Congress has found no accepted medical use of marijuana and that state medical marijuana protections detract from the fight against drug trafficking.

On June 6, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the federal government can continue arresting patients who use medical marijuana legally under their state laws. However, the court did not overturn state medical marijuana laws or in any way interfere with their continued operation.

Justice O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent. In her dissent, Justice O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who added that — while she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator — the court should respect the states' "own conclusions about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve pain and suffering."

"Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana," Justice Thomas wrote in his separate dissent. "If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." Thomas said the ruling was so broad "the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

Download the Supreme Court's decision here.

Download a transcript of the oral arguments during the hearing before the Supreme Court here.

Download the brief filed by MPP and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies here.

Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi — conservative states that do not have laws protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest — filed briefs arguing that the federal government should stay out of state business.

MPP's grants program provided the majority of the funding for this litigation, which was only the second medical marijuana case ever to reach the Supreme Court.