## Facts

- Angel McClary Raich, a seriously ill California resident, used marijuana for medical purposes on a physician’s recommendation under California’s Compassionate Use Act.
- Two unnamed co-plaintiffs assisted Raich by cultivating marijuana for her personal medical use.
- Federal law, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance and generally prohibits its manufacture, distribution, and possession absent federal authorization.
- Raich and others sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent federal enforcement of the CSA against their intrastate, noncommercial medical marijuana activities.
- After the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to apply the CSA to such conduct under the Commerce Clause, the case returned to the Ninth Circuit to address remaining constitutional claims.

## Issues

1. Whether applying the CSA to Raich’s physician-recommended medical marijuana use violates substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment by infringing a fundamental right to make medically necessary, life-preserving treatment decisions.
2. Whether the Ninth Amendment provides an enforceable basis to invalidate the CSA as applied to Raich’s medical marijuana use.
3. Whether applying the CSA in a state permitting medical marijuana violates the Tenth Amendment by intruding on powers reserved to the states or the people.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and rejected Raich’s remaining constitutional claims.
- The court held there is no fundamental right to use medical marijuana in violation of federal law.
- Because no fundamental right was implicated, the CSA was reviewed under rational basis scrutiny and upheld as rationally related to legitimate federal interests in controlling controlled substances.
- The Ninth Amendment did not supply an independent ground to invalidate the CSA’s application where the substantive due process claim failed.
- The Tenth Amendment did not bar enforcement because Congress acted within its enumerated powers as previously confirmed by the Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process analysis requires a carefully described asserted liberty interest and recognition as fundamental only if deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and implicit in ordered liberty.
- A claimed right to use a specific federally prohibited controlled substance for medical treatment is not, without more, a fundamental right.
- When no fundamental right is implicated, legislation is upheld if rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest; Congress may rationally maintain a closed regulatory system for controlled substances and prevent diversion that could undermine the scheme.
- The Ninth Amendment generally does not create independently enforceable individual rights to invalidate otherwise constitutional federal statutes.
- The Tenth Amendment does not invalidate federal law enacted pursuant to an enumerated power, even if it conflicts with state policy.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that federal enforcement of the CSA against intrastate, physician-recommended medical marijuana use does not violate substantive due process and is valid under rational basis review, and that neither the Ninth nor Tenth Amendment independently prevents application of the CSA in a state that permits medical marijuana.


Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007)