Raich v. Gonzales
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
500 F.3d. 850 (2007)
- Written by Philip Glass, JD
Facts
State and federal law enforcement raided the home of Diane Monson on August 15, 2002. Federal agents took possession of Monson’s marijuana plants, justifying their destruction of the plants by determining that Monson’s possession violated the federal Controlled Substances Act. Angel McClary Raich (plaintiff) required medical marijuana for managing at least 10 severe medical conditions. According to Raich’s doctor, all other treatment regimens caused unbearable side effects, such that nonuse could prove fatal for Raich. Raich, along with Monson and two marijuana growers (plaintiffs) moved for declaratory and injunctive relief against the imposition of the Controlled Substances Act. Monson later withdrew from the action. Raich faced no imminent prosecution for using medical marijuana. The district court denied Raich’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded the opinion of the Ninth Circuit on Commerce Clause grounds. The Ninth Circuit thereafter determined whether the common-law doctrine of necessity provided grounds for an injunction against the possibility of prosecution for possessing medical marijuana.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Beam, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
