3 - Decision of the Court

The decision(6-3) was in favor of the Petitionor Attourney general Ashcroft.  Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the ʻcommerce clauseʻ  gave congress authority to prohibit local cultivation.  In short, the local cultivation of Marjuana affected the national marijuana market.  And, that Raichsʻ activities were under that of which falls under the Controlled Substances Act.

 

“No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.”

Quote from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

The Dissent Opinion

Justices Rehnquist, OʻConnor, Thomas

With a statement from justice OʻConnor stated from a previous case precedent, she has dissented.  Giving compassion to the subject matter.  Stating that the role of the state regarding marijuana.  The state of California, through ballot initiative and also by legislative process, has come to a conclusion that marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering.  She also stated that the state of California police powers have defined criminal law, and perhaps have laws that protect the health, safety, and welfare of their own citizens.  Implementing that the Marijuana cultivation of Raich on a local level should be handled on a state level and that it didn’t effect national commerce of Marijuana. 

The Concurring Opinion

Justice Stevens, upheld the previous case precedent.  However, strongly noted the other avenue of relief.  It is implemented in his opinion about the CSA in which classified Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug.  Under the current CSA law, it makes Marijuana illegal, specifically pertaining to the ʻcommerce clauseʻ.  However he also stated that the case may point to a reclassification of such Schedule 1 drug list under the ʻcommerce clauseʻ.  That reclassification is a democratic process that may in the future be heard in congress.  He then reiterates that marijuana, under the current CSA, is listed under ʻSchedule 1ʻ drugs, and currently supports the petitionors angle in this case.

We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.

 

Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

-       from the opinion by Justice Stevens

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html