News Release

December 17, 2003

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

An Important Win for Medical Marijuana Users

WASHINGTON -- Cato Institute Senior Fellow Randy Barnett, author of the forthcoming book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty, notched a significant victory for civil liberties when the federal court of appeals based in San Francisco ruled against the federal government yesterday in Raich v. Ashcroft.

"This is decision is a breakthrough on behalf of those like my clients whose suffering is alleviated only by medical cannabis," Randy E. Barnett said today. " This case shows that federalism is not just for political conservatives. Holding Congress to its enumerated powers, as the Ninth Circuit has done, favors diversity and experimentation of all kinds at the state level.

"I am deeply grateful to the Ninth Circuit for taking so seriously the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence. If this case does go to the Supreme Court, we will learn whether the more conservative justices who developed this doctrine have the courage of their convictions when it applies to activities of which they may disapprove. We will also see whether the more liberal justices will put their disdain for the Court's landmark Commerce Clause cases--U.S. v. Lopez and .S. v. Morrison--above the commitment to stare decisis, which would let them do justice to those whose suffering is alleviated by use of medical cannabis.

Assessing the decision, Roger Pilon, Cato's Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, said:

"The California medical marijuana decision handed down yesterday is an important step in the struggle by libertarians and others on both the right and the left to limit Congress to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore federalism principles at the heart of the Constitution.

"The case pits California's Compassionate Use Act, enacted after California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, against the federal Controlled Substances Act. It arose following a three-hour standoff involving the Butte County Sheriff and District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California plus DEA agents. The agents seized plaintiff Diane Monson's six cannabis plants, cultivated and used, with her doctor's advice, to relieve pain arising from several medical conditions. Monson and three others brought suit asking, among other things, that the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress under its power to regulate interstate commerce, be declared unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to prohibit people like them, who are engaged in no commerce at all, from possessing and using marijuana for medical purposes.

"Although yesterday's decision simply overturned the district court's earlier denial of a preliminary injunction against the federal government, the panel found that the plaintiffs are likely to win on the merits and so are entitled to a preliminary injunction pending adjudication on the merits. In so ruling, the panel drew heavily on arguments presented by Cato senior fellow Randy Barnett, representing the plaintiffs, that enforcement of the Act in cases like this would extend Congress's power beyond the limits authorized by the Constitution. The opinion is thus consistent with the Rehnquist Court's recent federalism decisions, which have sought to limit the reach of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce."