Drug War Rant has, as promised, a great guide to Raich v. Ashcroft, the medical marijuana case set for argument Monday before the Supreme Court. The guide is a handy reference to the case's history, the legal principles involved, the players involved and some of the legal history involved. For lawyers and interested people, there is a section of links to the briefs submitted by parties and amici.
This case is important for more than just marijuana or drug war implications. This is one of the best commerce clause cases to come before the court in years. Interestingly, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana filed amicus briefs urging the court to find the marijuana in question outside the reach of federal law. Alabama's brief is rather scary for the vehemence in which they proudly recite their drug-fighting past. But they also note that this activity should be beyond the reach of the feds.
I thought that Randy Barnett did a great job of distinguishing this case from Wickard v. Filburn, a case that greatly expanded Congress's commerce clause powers. I think this is significant because the court can uphold the 9th Circuit without overturning Wickard, which I think a majority of justice would be loathe to do (although the Institute for Justice urges the court to do just that in their amicus brief). The briefing by the respondents shows exactly why I think Randy Barnett should be George Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court. I really doubt he will, but he should be.
Anyway, Monday at 10:00 EST, the parties argue this case. Drug War Rant is looking for responses from anyone who is there in person. If anybody wants to email me about the argument, I would greatly appreciate it and will post good descriptions of the argument.
Comments