Is the Supreme Court ruling on Medical Marijuana justified by the principles of Constitutional Law?

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) that patients who take Medical Marijuana in states where Medical Marijuana is legal, they are not shielded from federal prosecution.

  • 1
    @Stevie C. That would help a little, but still leave questions about what constitutes "being impartial" and leave this largely "opinion-based". One could ask, "Is the supreme court's ruling on {subject X} justified by principals of constitutional law, or in line with precedent?" Tht kinbd of question is on-topic, in part becaue a fact-based answer is possible. Commented Aug 28, 2022 at 17:29

1 Answer 1


The logic of Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) closely tracked that of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

In Wickard the Court held that wheat grown on a farm and used solely for livestock feed on that same farm was subject to regulation as part of "interstate commerce" on the theories that the owner would be less inclined to buy wheat from others for this purpose, thus affecting interstate commerce, and that there would be a temptation to sell some of the wheat off the farm if prices increased (the goal of the regulation) thus "affecting interstate commerce".

Raich followed a similar logic, claiming that marijuana plants grown for individual consumption might in fact be sold into the market, thus affecting the interstate market in marijuana. It also accepted the government claim that any exception to the federal laws regulating marijuana might be used for widespread traffic in marijuana.

The Wickard case was a significant expansion of the US government's power under the Commerce Clause. It was widely debated when it came out, and has been controversial among legal scholars ever since. It has remained the law for eighty years.

After Wickard, no challenge to Congressional action under the commerce clause was upheld until United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), In those, and several other decisions from about the same time the Rehnquist Court struck down aspects of then-recent gun control and civil rights legislation on the ground that the commerce clause only allowed regulation of "economic" activity, and possession of guns and domestic violence were not economic.

In Raich the majority considered Lopez and Morrison but distinguished them, on the grounds that potential sale of marijuana was economic activity. Dissents strongly objected to this.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .