| |  | | | | | | 24 Hour Assistance
call toll free: (800) 931-0450 | more info | | | | Need Bail
(562) 597-7377 (562) 858-1450 | more info | | | | DUI Specialist
Your World-Class California DUI Lawyer | more info | | | | Case Results
A Lawyer thatworks for you | more info | | | | :: iTEMS OF INTEREST ::
Federal Case (9th Cir.)
Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222
2003
Plaintiffs, medical marijuana users and growers, sued defendants, the Attorney General of the United States and the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, challenging the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C.S. ' 801 et seq. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs argued that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C.S. ' 801 et seq. (CSA) was unconstitutional because it attempted to prevent them from possessing, obtaining, manufacturing, or providing cannabis for medical use. The appellate court determined that the lower judge made a mistake in denying plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. The appellate court said that plaintiffs = application for a preliminary injunction should have been granted because plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits that, as applied to them, the CSA was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. The appellate court further found that plaintiffs' conduct -- the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law, was different from drug trafficking. The appellate court also said that plaintiffs = conduct did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
:: GONZALES V. RAICH, 125 S. Ct. 2195
| | | |
