Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gonzales Vs. Raich

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 06, 2005

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

74 entries 5 linked 69 unlinked
Show
  1. Wickard Vs. Filburn US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1942
  2. United States Vs. Doremus US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1919
  3. United States Vs. Lopez US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1995
  4. United States Vs. Rutherford US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1979
  5. Granholm Vs. Heald US Supreme Court · May 16, 2005
  6. Syllabus October Term, 2004 Gonzales V. Raich
    Search
  7. Supreme Court of the United States Gonzales, Attorney General, Et Al. V. Raich
    Search
  8. s physician pursuant to valid California state law. The court relied heavily on United States v. Lopez
    Search
  9. U. S. 549 , and United States v. Morrison
    Search
  10. that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United
    Search
  11. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn
    Search
  12. C. J., and Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Gonzales v. Raich
    Search
  13. Opinion of the Court Gonzales V. Raich
    Search
  14. Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-1454 Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Et Al., Petitioners V. Angel
    Search
  15. motion for a preliminary injunction. Raich v. Ashcroft
    Search
  16. Raich v. Ashcroft
    Search
  17. Ibid . The majority placed heavy reliance on our decisions in United States v. Lopez
    Search
  18. U. S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison
    Search
  19. crop at issue in this case from the cultivation and use of the wheat crop that affected interstate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn
    Search
  20. underwent a significant transformation. A number of noteworthy events precipitated this policy shift. First, in Leary v. United
    Search
  21. see also United States v. Oakland
    Search
  22. none of our Commerce Clause cases can be viewed in isolation. As charted in considerable detail in United States v. Lopez
    Search
  23. authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Perez v. United
    Search
  24. NLRB v. Jones
    Search
  25. quoting Westfall v. United
    Search
  26. E.g., Lopez , 514 U. S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz
    Search
  27. absent a special concern such as the protection of free speech, see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
    Search
  28. see also Hodel v. Virginia
    Search
  29. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United
    Search
  30. the dispensing of new drugs, even when doctors approve their use, must await federal approval. United States v. Rutherford
    Search
  31. legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz , 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United
    Search
  32. plenary commerce power. See United States v. Darby
    Search
  33. the findings in the CSA and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, our decisions in Wickard v. Filburn
    Search
  34. and the later cases endorsing its reasoning foreclose that claim. v. Respondents
    Search
  35. a), 52 Stat. 1059. Footnote 12 See United States v. Doremus
    Search
  36. Leary v. United
    Search
  37. Footnote 21 See United States v. Moore
    Search
  38. access to seriously ill patients, and concluded that it should be reclassified as a Schedule III substance, Grinspoon v. DEA
    Search
  39. s final order. See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA
    Search
  40. F. 3d 1131, 1133 (1994). Footnote 24 United States v. Lopez
    Search
  41. Souter, J., dissenting). Footnote 25 See Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  42. see also Granholm v. Heald
    Search
  43. see also Wickard v. Filburn
    Search
  44. and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. App. 59, 74, 87. See also Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth
    Search
  45. Turner v. United
    Search
  46. see also Conant v. Walters
    Search
  47. that have long since been rejected. See post , at 8 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland
    Search
  48. h)(12)(A) to (12)(B) (West Supp. 2005). Footnote 40 See, e.g., United States v. Moore
    Search
  49. time, nearly 20 times more than she uses on a weekly basis. Footnote 43 See, e.g., People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron
    Search
  50. Scalia, J., Concurring in Judgment Gonzales V. Raich
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial