Cert Granted in Raich v. Ashcroft

[Earl Maltz]

Seems to me this case is Wickard v. Filburn--defendants  defendants engaged 
in a class of activities that is undeniably commercial, even if they 
themselves are not selling or buying.  Thus, it is clearly distinguishable 
from Lopez and Morrison.

At 10:57 AM 6/28/2004 -0400, Randy Barnett wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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