Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Raich v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSubstantive Due ProcessTenth AmendmentControlled Substances ActPreliminary InjunctionMedical Necessitymedical marijuanaControlled Substances Act

Facts

Angel McClary Raich is seriously ill and uses marijuana for medical treatment on her physician's recommendation; her caregivers cultivate it for her free of charge because she cannot do so herself. Her doctor testified that legal alternatives had been ineffective or caused intolerable side effects, and that foregoing marijuana treatment might be fatal. Raich sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against her medical use of marijuana was unlawful on necessity, substantive due process, and Tenth Amendment grounds. On remand from the Supreme Court, she also argued for the first time that the Act's text did not prohibit her possession if allowed by state law.

Issue

Whether Raich showed a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act based on common law necessity, substantive due process, the Tenth Amendment, or the statute's text. Also, whether her newly raised statutory-text argument could be considered on appeal.

Rule

A preliminary injunction requires a showing of likely success on the merits under the court's traditional or sliding-scale standards. A common law necessity defense, even if factually supportable, is an affirmative defense to criminal liability and does not by itself authorize prospective injunctive relief against enforcement of a statute. For substantive due process, courts must carefully and narrowly describe the asserted liberty interest and then ask whether it is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition and implicit in ordered liberty. Where Congress validly acts under the Commerce Clause, displacement of state police power does not itself create a Tenth Amendment violation, and arguments not raised below may be deemed waived on appeal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Lena Ortiz suffers from a degenerative neurological disorder. Her physician states in a sworn declaration that an otherwise unlawful drug is the only treatment that relieves her symptoms, all lawful medications have failed, and losing access could cause rapid deterioration; before any prosecution begins, Lena sues federal officials seeking an injunction barring future enforcement of a federal criminal drug statute against her solely on common law necessity grounds.

Should the court grant the injunction on that theory?

Explanation. The majority held that, even assuming the plaintiff appears to satisfy the factual predicate for necessity, necessity is a justification defense to criminal liability and does not itself authorize a court to prospectively enjoin enforcement of a criminal statute. The conduct remains a legally recognized harm, and the defense is better assessed in a concrete prosecution where the facts can be tested at that time. (Derived from Raich v. Gonzales (n.d.).)