Cert Granted in Raich v. Ashcroft

[Randy Barnett]

Cert. was granted today in Raich v. Ashcroft.  In Raich, the Ninth
Circuit held that the application of the Controlled Substance Act to
persons who cultivated their own cannabis for medical use, or had
caregivers cultivate it for then at no charge, was unconstitutional
because it exceeded the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.
Assuming a normal briefing schedule, the oral argument should be some
time after mid-October. 

Raich will represent the third great Commerce Clause case in 15 years.
They seem to come in five year intervals. Lopez in 1995, Morrison in
2000 and now Raich in 2005. A ruling for the government in Raich would,
in my view, represent the effective repudiation of Lopez and Morrison,
for the government's reasoning would allow Congress it to reach whatever
activity it chooses provided that its statutory scheme was sufficiently
large enough. In other words, by the government's theory, the more power
that Congress claims, the more justified is its claim of power.
Therefore, if the Court reaches the merits, whatever it decides in Raich
v. Ashcroft will be a landmark decision with enormous importance for the
future of federalism.

Full disclosure:  I have been one of the principal attorneys in the case
since its inception.

_____________________________________________
Randy E. Barnett
Austin B. Fletcher Professor
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Ave.
Boston, MA  02215
617-353-3099 (phone)
617-353-3077 (fax)
http://www.RandyBarnett.com
http://www.LysanderSpooner.org (Lysander Spooner page)
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7648.html (Restoring the Lost
Constitution page)
http://www.RandyBarnett.com/SOL.htm (Structure of Liberty page)

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:48 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Today's SCOTUS Decisions
Importance: High


The Court issued opinions today in the following argued cases:

No. 02-1183, United States v. Patane, per Justice Thomas, reversed and
remanded.

No. No. 02-1371, Missouri v. Seibert, per Justice Souter, affirmed

Nos. 03-334, Rasul v. Bush, and 03-343, Al Odah v. United States, per
Justice Stevens, reversed and remanded

No. 03-6696, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, per Justice O'Connor, reversed and
remanded

No. 03-1027, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, per the Chief Justice, reversed and
remanded


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof