- [Narrator] In 2005, medical marijuana users
saw their dreams go up in smoke
when the United States Supreme Court
announced it's ruling in Gonzales versus Raich.
In 1970, Congress enacted
the Federal Controlled Substances Act,
which bans the cultivation and use of marijuana.
26 years later, in 1996, California passed a law
that allowed its citizens to cultivate
and use marijuana for medical purposes.
Angel Raich and Diane Monson were California residents
who both used doctor prescribed marijuana
to treat severe medical problems.
California law enforcement agents investigating Raich
and Monson, found that the marijuana they possessed
conformed to state law.
But federal agents seized
and destroyed their marijuana plants
under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
In an effort to legitimize their medical marijuana use
at the federal level Raich and Monson sued Alberto Gonzales,
attorney general of the United States,
to challenge the Controlled Substances Act
and adjoin its enforcement against them.
Raich and Monson lost in the district court.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed and held that the Controlled Substances Act
is unconstitutional when applied
to intrastate medical marijuana use.
Which means use occurring wholly within a state's borders.
The question for the United States Supreme Court
was whether Congress's authority to regulate commerce
extends to the regulation of the in-state use
and production of marijuana for medical purposes.
The Court held that the Controlled Substances Act
is constitutional because Congress has the power
to regulate purely local activities
that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Justice Stevens writing for the 6-3 majority,
relied on the previous Supreme Court case
of Wickard versus Filburn to reach this conclusion.
In Wickard, the Court held that Congress may regulate
the amount of wheat that a farmer could produce
for home consumption because the farmer's wheat production
taken in the aggregate had a substantial effect
on interstate wheat prices.
Any addition of homegrown wheat to the overall market
frustrated Congress's attempt to regulate the entire market.
This relationship made the regulation in Wickard
a proper exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause authority.
This case, Stevens reasoned, was similar
because the Controlled Substances Act
also attempts to control the supply of a commodity.
When viewed in the aggregate, home-consumed marijuana,
just like home-consumed wheat, has a substantial effect
on the interstate supply of marijuana.
The Court also noted that because there is such
a high demand for marijuana on the interstate market,
the medical marijuana grown and used in-state
will inevitable end up crossing state lines.
This frustrates Congress's attempt to eradicate
the interstate trafficking of marijuana.
Therefore, the Court found that Congress
had acted rationally in determining
that in-state medical marijuana
has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Therefore, the Court held the Controlled Substances Act
to be a valid exercise of Congress's
Commerce Clause authority.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals
and upheld the constitutionality of the act.
Justice Scalia concurred in judgment,
agreeing with the outcome of the case
but not with the majority's reasoning.
Scalia argued that under the necessary and proper clause,
Congress may regulate even those in-state activities
that don't substantially affect interstate commerce.
Here, Congress adopted a comprehensive statute
that prohibits the use of marijuana.
It's therefore necessary and proper for Congress
to reach into purely local activities
and prohibit them, even if the activity doesn't
substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Thomas wrote a dissent arguing
that Congress overstepped its authority
with the Controlled Substances Act.
Because Raich and Monson's cultivation
and consumption of marijuana plants
weren't properly defined as commerce.
He argued that their marijuana was never bought
or sold and never crossed state lines.
According to Thomas, Congress didn't demonstrate
the regulation of locally grown
and consumed medical marijuana is necessary
to combat the interstate drug trade.
Justice O'Connor, a well known state's rights proponent,
argued in another dissent, that the majority's decision
infringed on state's rights.
O'Connor believed the decision gave Congress the power
to improperly regulate any in-state activity
it deems essential to the regulation of interstate commerce.
Gonzales versus Raich protected the federal government's
ability to seize and destroy marijuana in all 50 states,
including in those states that have legalized marijuana use
under state law.
The case also represents an expansion
of Congress's Commerce Clause authority
to regulate in-state activities.
But none of that mattered to Angel Raich.
Despite the ruling, she announced that she'd continue
to use medical marijuana to alleviate her suffering,
no matter what the Supreme Court
has to say about federalism.