|
Important Links
Briefs
Brief of Respondents
Reply Brief for Petitioners
Other Court Documents
U.S. Court of Appeals Opinion
U.S. Department of Justice Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court
California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996
|
Case Background
California is one of several states who have enacted laws allowing the use of medical marijuana. Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson are California citizens who currently use marijuana as a medical treatment. Ms. Raich has been diagnosed with more than ten serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor, life-threatening weight loss, a seizure disorder, nausea, and several chronic pain disorders. Ms. Monson suffers from severe chronic back pain and constant, painful muscle spasms. Her doctor states that these symptoms are caused by a degenerative disease of the spine.
Diane Monson cultivates her own marijuana. Raich is unable to cultivate her own and has two caregivers who provide her the marijuana free of charge. Although these caregivers cultivate marijuana for Raich, she processes some of the marijuana into cannabis oils, balm, and foods.
On August 15, 2002, deputies from the Butte County Sheriff’s Department and agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) came to Monson’s home. The sheriff’s deputies concluded that Monson’s use of marijuana was legal under the Compassionate Use Act. However, after a three hour standoff involving the Butte County District Attorney and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, the DEA agents seized and destroyed Monson’s six cannabis plants.
Fearing raids in the future and the prospect of being deprived of medicinal marijuana, Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson filed suit against the United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Administrator of the DEA Asa Hutchison on October 9, 2002. Their suit seeks declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring federal officials from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) . They are seeking a declaration that the CSA is unconstitutional to the extent it would prevent them from possessing, obtaining, manufacturing, or providing cannabis for medical use and are seeking a declaration that the doctrine of medical necessity precludes enforcement of the CSA to prevent them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. On March 5, 2003, the district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that, “despite the gravity of plaintiffs' need for medical cannabis, and despite the concrete interest of California to provide it for individuals like them,” they had not established the required “ ‘irreducible minimum’ of a likelihood of success on the merits under the law of this Circuit . . . .” An appeal was filed on March 12, 2003.
A divided panel of the court of appeals reversed and remanded. The court of appeals ultimately concluded that respondents “have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority.” The court observed that its previous decisions that had rejected Commerce Clause challenges to the CSA were not controlling, because none of those decisions “involved the use, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes.” The final opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the CSA cannot constitutionally be applied to the manufacture, possession, and distribution without charge of marijuana for purported medicinal use.
Finally, the federal government appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court April 20, 2004. Oral arguments were presented before the court November 29, 2004. |
