ࡱ> >@= 'bjbjT~T~ 4866////,[/wwwwwfff$;p4fffff4wwIzzzf wwzfzz:,zwv8pO/p  _0(RMzMzMzffzfffff44zfffffffMfffffffff : TEACHER GUIDE: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) LEGAL BACKGROUND Article I, section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the legislative branch, among which is the power To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. This Commerce Clause has been an important source of Congressional power, although its meaning and scope have not always been clear. From 1937 until the 1990s, the Court deferred to Congress in almost every exercise of its power under the commerce clause. An important example of the Courts approach in those years is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The case challenged the constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which imposed quotas on agricultural production even when a farmers crops (in this case wheat) were to be used on his own farm or sold only locally. The Court held that even a small amount of wheat used within a family or a community could affect the total supply and thus the market price. Such an effect on interstate commerce justified Congresss use of the commerce power to enact the statute. In the 1960s, Congress used its commerce power to enact important civil rights laws. In addition to civil rights, Congress has used its commerce power to enact environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, all of which have so far been upheld by the Court. The 1990s saw a potentially important shift in the Courts interpretation of Congresss power under the Commerce Clause. In U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, holding that the Constitution required that a statute passed pursuant to Congresss commerce power must have a clear relationship to interstate commerce. In U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Court struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act, reasoning that although violence against women may have some effect on interstate commerce when all crimes are aggregated, the indirect connection between individual crimes and commerce was not enough for the Court to sustain the statute. The Constitution, according to the Courts opinion, requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. Gonzales v. Raich presented a challenge to federal drug laws as applied to purely intrastate activity. DOCUMENTARY OVERVIEW: The documentary, a transcript of which is available on the Voices of Law website, consists of interviews with the following people involved with the case: Robert Raich: Lawyer activist in Oakland, California who has worked to liberalize Californias drug laws to permit the use of medical marijuana. Michael Ramsey: District Attorney for Butte County responsible for enforcing Californias Proposition 215. Diane Monson: Resident of Butte County who had a recommendation to use medical marijuana and grew her own plants at her home. After her plants were seized, she agreed to be a plaintiff in a case challenging the federal governments power. John Vinson: Former Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of California who approved the decision to seize Diane Monsons marijuana. John Ashcroft: Former US Attorney General who oversaw drug enforcement policies; was the original defendant in the lawsuit. Angel Raich: Long-time activist in support of use of medical marijuana in California; lead plaintiff in lawsuit. Randy Barnett: Professor of Law who worked with Robert and Angel Raich on the case. Part 1 (beginning to 4:22): Medical marijuana in California Attorney Robert Raich endorses the medical use of marijuana and explains the origins and passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act. District Attorney Mike Ramsey describes how the law is implemented by local law enforcement. Part 2 (4:22 to 11:24): The raid on Diane Monson Diane Monson describes how she treats her chronic back pain with marijuana. She explains that she grows her own supply of six marijuana plants according to the guidelines issued by Ramseys office. Monson and Ramsey recount an incident in which Ramseys deputies, accompanied by federal Drug Enforcement Agency officers, were investigating Monsons marijuana plants to ensure that she was compliant with the local guidelines for growing medical marijuana. When the deputies confirmed that she was compliant and were preparing to leave, the federal agents responded that under federal law they must seize the plants. John Vincent and John Ashcroft explain the federal policy, while Ramsey and Monson relate their anger at the agents seizure of the plants. Part 3 (11:24 to 14:49): Angel Raich and the origins of the lawsuit Angel Raich describes her many medical problems and the difficulties she faced trying to treat them before turning to medical marijuana. She and Robert Raich recount their frustration at increasing federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries; they decide to file a lawsuit challenging the federal governments power to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in the absence of any interstate commercial activity. Monson agrees to join the suit. Part 4 (14:49 to end): The legal arguments The plaintiffs enlist the help of law professor Randy Barnett. Barnett articulates his clients arguments against the federal governments Commerce Clause authority in this case, while Ashcroft counters with the Department of Justices defense of federal law and policy regarding medical marijuana. SUGGESTED APPROACHES TO USING THE DOCUMENTARY: Two simple approaches to using the documentary are to show the entire case video in class or to assign students to watch it outside of class. The documentary concludes when the Supreme Court grants review, leaving discussion of the Courts opinion for the classroom; we have found that the documentary is most effective when viewed before reading the opinion, because students are better prepared to analyze and discuss the factual setting and the legal issues in the case when they have heard from the parties involved. Professors may also consider showing discrete sections of the video in class. In this case, Part 2 is particularly effective. The raid on Diane Monsons house presents a perfect microcosm of the dispute: State police officers permit Dianes plants as compliance with Butte Countys published guidelines while the federal agents, insistent upon enforcing the letter of federal law, want to seize the plants. The resulting conversation between the responsible law enforcement leaders Butte County DA Ramsey and US Attorney Vinson is a powerful moment that captures the conflict in governmental authority at the heart of this dispute. Part 4 presents the legal arguments that were offered in the litigation of the case. While useful for students to understand how the legal issues were presented in the case, this part can probably be covered adequately during class discussions and probably need not be shown in class. It is very helpful for students to watch in advance of class to help understand the arguments. The documentary is accompanied by a party narrative that focuses on Angel Raich. She is a very interesting character in this dispute. She suffers from a range of series illnesses; there is no doubt that in her view, medical marijuana is the only effective way to provide her relief. She has been perhaps the most visible crusader in support of medical marijuana. Students will find it quite interesting to hear more from her about her illnesses and experiences with medical marijuana. Also, the documentary includes a short aftermath segment that provides a short description of the opinion, along with reaction from the principal parties. This includes analysis by Professor Barnett on the political dimension of the case. Students can watch this after the class to provide a wrap-up on the decision and its significance.  !#456GH d v q r "%2S #zn`ho(h'?6CJ]aJho(h&CJ]aJho(hzCJ]aJho(h'?CJ]aJho(hv6CJaJho(hvCJ]aJho(hPOCCJaJho(h5DCJ]aJho(h >*CJaJho(h 5>*CJaJho(h5D5CJaJho(h 5CJaJho(hbm5CJaJ 56GH ijk & F7$8$H$gdz$a$gdz$a$gd&gdv$a$gd'?gdPOC$a$gd5D$a$gd $a$gd #3Khk*+,+,-沤vvvvvj_W_ho(CJaJho(h CJaJho(h 5CJaJho(hz5CJaJho(hz6CJaJho(hzCJaJho(hPOCCJaJho(hPOC5>*CJaJho(hv5>*CJaJho(h'?6CJ]aJho(h&CJ]aJho(h'?CJ]aJho(hvCJ]aJho(hv6CJ]aJ"%&3;Y    #;<}(,;蹮ĖĊtttĊĊtititititititho(h CJaJho(hR5CJaJho(h,"CJaJho(h}Ke5CJaJho(hS5CJaJho(hli5CJaJho(hm`CJaJho(h'?CJaJho(h'?5CJaJho(h'?6CJaJho(hz5CJaJho(hzCJaJho(hz6CJaJ)  <01u45`L"M"##$a$gd-'ogdD$a$gd&$a$gdR5$a$gd," $ & Fa$gd'?;@FIgnp/01>BGIJtu345` M"R"S"a##### 'ȼȼȼߥȥvkvkvkvkvkvkho(ho(CJaJho(h-'oCJaJho(hDCJaJho(hD5>*CJaJho(h_CJaJho(h&CJaJho(h3Ad5CJaJho(h}Ke5CJaJho(h_5CJaJho(h3AdCJaJho(hfyCJaJho(hR5CJaJho(hJCJaJ%#%% '''gdD$a$gd-'o '''h3AdhDCJaJhDhDCJaJ21h:pm`/ =!"#$% j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH N`N  Normal 7$8$H$OJPJQJ_HmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List @@ li List Paragraph ^m$PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] 8#; ''#'L# AA@0(  B S  ? %p lFʦ ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(%p l                   _v o(,&--R5'?POC5DJSm`3Ad}Kebm-'oD n^&zfyli,"B@@r@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @Calibri?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"h Cf Cfm8m8!r02HX  $P 2!xxTEACHER GUIDE: Lee vlawuserlawuser  Oh+'0  < H T`hpxTEACHER GUIDE: Lee vlawuser Normal.dotmlawuser2Microsoft Office Word@@v%pO@v%pOm՜.+,0 hp   Duke University School of Law8 TEACHER GUIDE: Lee v Title  !"#$%&'()*+,./012346789:;<?Root Entry F]8pOA1TableaWordDocument48SummaryInformation(-DocumentSummaryInformation85CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q