Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v.Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 (2005): [ 7 ] [ 8 ] The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation.
Raich (later Gonzales v. Raich ), which he won before the Ninth Circuit , which ruled that federal action against legal marijuana patients violated the Commerce Clause. Barnett's side, however, lost on appeal at the Supreme Court , which ruled that Congress had the power to enforce federal marijuana prohibition in states that had legalized ...
Science & Tech. Shopping. Sports
Robert Raich is an American attorney. He served as legal counsel in the only two medical cannabis cases heard by the United States Supreme Court: United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in 2001 and Gonzales v. Raich in 2004. [1]: 138 His spouse at the time, Angel Raich, was a party in the latter case.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance. [1]
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. [1]