Medical Marijuana Enforcement

Last week, Attorney General Holder announced that the federal government will limit raids on distributors of medical marijuana in states where such distribution is legal, even when the distribution is illegal under federal law.

NY Times covered the announcement.

This announcement led me to an interesting case that was decided by the US Supreme Court in 2005. The case, Raich v Ashcroft, goes to the heart of states' rights vs. federal power. Specifically, what happens when an act, such as the distribution of medical marijuana, is permitted by state law but considered criminal by federal law?

This question in its simplest form is answered in the Constitution by the Supremacy Clause, which states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, the powers of the Congress in making laws are limited to the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the constitution. If you look at the list of enumerated powers, which include powers such as taxation, maintaining a military, establishment of a post office, etc, the only category of power that an anti-drug law could possibly fall under is the Commerce Clause, which states:

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Therefore, one of the key questions in this case was whether the federal regulations prohibiting medical marijuana fall under the category of interstate commerce.

Salon has excellent coverage of this case and the decision.
The unabridged opinion is available at the SCOTUS site (pdf).
Washington Post coverage of the decision.