Court upholds government on medical marijuana
on Jun 6, 2005 at 10:01 am
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that Congress had the authority to make it a crime to grow and use marijuana purely for personal medical purposes when recommended by a doctor. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause power when applied to medical marijuana used under California law.
In practical terms, the Court’s decision will force the Justice Department to decide how aggressively it wants to prosecute individuals who grow and use marijuana for medical purposes, in the face of a spreading movement in the states to allow such uses. There are at least ten states, and perhaps 11 (if Arizona is counted) that allow such uses of marijuana. The same notion is being promoted in other states, too, and public opinion polls show that three-fourths of Americans asked support doctor-prescribed marijuana to ease pain and suffering.
The Court relied, as the Justice Department had urged in its appeal, upon the Court’s sweeping endorsement of federal Commerce Clause power in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.
“The case,” Stevens wrote, “comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the Act’s findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progency foreclose that claim.” The decision came in the case of Gonzalez v. Raich (03-1454).
This was one of three decisions announced Monday.
In one of two decisions announced by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court ruled that the federal ban on discrimination in public accommodations against the disabled in some instances does apply to companies operating foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters. The decision in Spector, et al., v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (04-1388)was widely splintered. The ruling overturned the Fifth Circuit decision that the Americans with Disabilities Act in no instance would apply to such foreign vessels.
In the second opinion by Kennedy, the Court rejected the state of Alaska’s claim to title to submerged lands in southeast Alaska — lands that have been claimed by the federal government since Alaska became a state. The decision (with a partial dissent by three Justices) upheld a Special Master’s recommendation favoring the federal government on all of the submerged lands in dispute. The decision came in Alaska v. U.S. (128 Original).
In the only new case granted review Monday, the Court agreed to decide whether a loss in a tort claim against the U.S. government bars a later lawsuit against federal officers or employees who were involved. The issue arises in the federal government’s appeal in Will, et al., v. Hallock, et al. (docket 04-1332). In addition to that issue, the Court told parties also to argue whether the Second Circuit had jurisdiction over the case since the appeal was interlocutory following a District Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss.
In another order, the Court asked the Solicitor General’s office for its views on a significant issue affecting the home health care industry: whether home health care workers who are employed by outside agencies, not by families, are exempt from wage and hour protection under federal law. The case is Long Island Care at Home v. Coke (04-1315). Such outside employees caring for the elderly and the infirm at home have not been assured minimum wage and overtime pay for 30 years, but the Second Circuit struck down the Labor Department regulation that exempted them.
