Gonzales Vs Raich Summary

In the Supreme Court Case Gonzales v. Raich on June 6th, 2005, physician-recommended marijuana users Angel Raich and Diane Monson argued that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) allowed the United States Congress to abuse the Constitution-granted power of the Commerce Clause (Rosenbaum). Consequently, Raich and Monson’s case contributed greatly to the debate of federalism under the United States law (Rosenbaum). As demonstrated by the Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich, the role of the People is to notice a wrong in the government and attempt to make a change to better benefit the People, including either limiting or increasing the government. The Controlled Substance Act conflicted directly with California’s Compassionate Use Act that legalized medical marijuana (Oyez). According to Oyez, after federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency seized Raich’s and Monson’s marijuana from their respective homes, Raich and Monson “sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court” (Oyez). At first, they lost at trial; however, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supported their case, relying on two other Supreme Court cases that stopped Congress from interfering with local issues: U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v.

This conclusion demonstrates how federal law transcends intrastate law, at least through this case. Raich and Monson did not succeed in their plight to limit the federal law, but their attempt has become an example for others to look back upon when debating the conflict between federal law and state law. In this way, Raich and Monson represent the role of the People by taking action to change government and leaving enough impact for consideration in future government