Case Summary
### Case Summary: Raich v. Ashcroft
**Docket Number**: 03- SMA-7861033
**Court**: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Argued**: November 29, 2001
**Decided**: May 22, 2002
#### Background:
The case of Raich v. Ashcroft revolves around the legality of cannabis use for medical purposes and its intersection with federal drug enforcement policies. The plaintiffs, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, were patients who relied on marijuana for the treatment of severe medical conditions, including cancer and chronic pain. They sought injunctive relief against federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which prohibited the possession and use of marijuana, even for medical purposes.
#### Legal Issues:
The key legal issue was whether the federal government, through its enforcement of the CSA, could prohibit individuals from growing and using marijuana for personal medical use, in the absence of any interstate commerce. The plaintiffs argued that their activities constituted intrastate commerce and should not fall under federal jurisdiction according to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
#### Arguments:
1. **For the Plaintiffs**: Raich and Monson asserted that the medical use of marijuana was a legitimate activity that should be protected from federal interference. They claimed that the CSA exceeded federal authority as their use of marijuana did not affect interstate commerce.
2. **For the Defendant (Ashcroft)**: The federal government maintained that marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, making any use or possession illegal under the CSA. It argued that regulating marijuana is within the scope of federal power, regardless of its use for personal medical reasons.
#### Ruling:
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of Ashcroft, upholding the federal government's authority to regulate marijuana under the CSA. The court reasoned that even if the marijuana was cultivated and used solely for personal medical purposes, it could still indirectly affect the interstate market for controlled substances. The ruling was significant as it affirmed the federal government's position over state laws that permitted medical marijuana use.
#### Significance:
The decision in Raich v. Ashcroft was pivotal in the ongoing debate about the legality of medical marijuana and the extent of federal authority over drug regulation. It set a precedent that influenced subsequent cases and highlighted the tension between state laws permitting medical marijuana and the federal prohibition of its use.
### Conclusion:
Raich v. Ashcroft ultimately underscored the complexities of drug policy in the U.S. legal system, particularly in balancing states' rights against federal enforcement. This case highlighted the continuing conflict between advocates for medical marijuana and federal authorities, shaping the landscape of cannabis law in America.