This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Raich v Gonzales 500 F.3d. 850 (2007) CASE SUM MARY PROCED U RAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a patient and caregivers, sued defendants, Attorney General and administrator of Drug Enforcement Administration, in which they sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C.S. 801 et seq. The United States Dist rict Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed. OVERV I EW: The patient used marijuana for medical purposes on the recommendation of her physician. Such use was permit ted under California law. The caregivers assisted the patient by growing marijuana for her t reatment. The CSA listed marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, under 21 U.S.C.S. 812(c). California passed the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code 11362.5, which permit ted Californians to use marijuana for medical purposes. The appellate court found that the patient had not demonstrated that she would likely succeed in obtaining injunctive relief. Although common law necessity prevented criminal liability as to the patient it did not permit the court to enjoin prosecution for what remained a legally recognized harm. Legal recognition had not yet reached the point where a conclusion could be drawn that the r ight to use medical marijuana was "fundamental" and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The patient failed to demonstrate that the CSA violated the Tenth Amendment. The court declined to reach the argument that the CSA, by i ts terms, did not prohibit the patient's possession and use of marijuana because i t was not raised below. OU TCO M E: The judgment was affi rmed. ...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.
- Spring '10