Gonzales v. Raich

E8365

Gonzales v. Raich is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal power to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana under the Commerce Clause, even when states permit it for medical purposes.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (48)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
federal court case
areaOfLaw constitutional law
drug law
federal criminal law
arguedDate 2004-11-29
citation 125 S. Ct. 2195
162 L. Ed. 2d 1
545 U.S. 1
concurrenceBy Antonin Scalia
constitutionalProvision Commerce Clause
Necessary and Proper Clause
court Supreme Court of the United States
decidedBy Rehnquist Court
decisionDate 2005-06-06
dissentBy Clarence Thomas
Sandra Day O’Connor
William H. Rehnquist
docketNumber 03-1454
fullCaseName Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al.
linked to: Gonzales v. Raich
holding Congress may prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana under the Commerce Clause even if state law authorizes its use for medical purposes.
impact expanded understanding of Congress’s power over intrastate activities affecting interstate markets
limited practical effect of state medical marijuana exemptions against federal enforcement
joinedMajority Anthony Kennedy
linked to: Anthony M. Kennedy

David Souter
linked to: David H. Souter

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
linked to: Stephen G. Breyer
jurisdiction United States
legalIssue federalism
medical marijuana regulation
scope of the Commerce Clause
majorityOpinionBy John Paul Stevens
overruled no
petitioner Alberto R. Gonzales
linked to: Alberto Gonzales
precedentStatus binding on all lower federal courts
priorCaseReliedOn Wickard v. Filburn
relatedCase United States v. Lopez
United States v. Morrison
relatedConcept supremacy of federal law over conflicting state law
respondent Angel McClary Raich
Diane Monson
result federal prohibition on marijuana possession and cultivation upheld
stateInvolved California
stateLawContext California medical marijuana law
statuteInterpreted Controlled Substances Act
subjectMatter conflict between federal and state drug laws
federal regulation of marijuana
vote 6-3

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (13)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Commerce Clause interpretedInCase Gonzales v. Raich
Necessary and Proper Clause majorCase Gonzales v. Raich
Gonzales v. Raich fullCaseName Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich et al.
linked to: Gonzales v. Raich
Gibbons v. Ogden precedentFor Gonzales v. Raich
United States v. Lopez subsequentCitationIn Gonzales v. Raich
substantial effects doctrine citedInCase Gonzales v. Raich
Angel McClary Raich partyInLawsuit Gonzales v. Raich
Diane Monson opposedBy United States federal government in Gonzales v. Raich
linked to: Gonzales v. Raich
Diane Monson associatedWithEvent Gonzales v. Raich
Diane Monson partyToLegalCase Gonzales v. Raich
Angel McClary Raich knownFor Gonzales v. Raich
subject linked to: Raich
Angel McClary Raich participantIn Gonzales v. Raich
subject linked to: Raich