Gonzales v. Raich
2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding cannabis
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
Background
California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the use of medical cannabis. The federal government of the United States has regulated the use of cannabis since the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was enacted.
Respondents Angel Raich and Diane Monson used homegrown medicinal cannabis, which was legal under California law but illegal under federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff's Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's cannabis plants, facing light resistance. The cannabis plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
Monson and Raich sued, claiming that enforcing federal law against them would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment in excess of the Commerce Clause, and the doctrine of medical necessity. Raich's physician stated that without cannabis, Raich is threatened by excruciating pain.
“Gonzales v. Raich” enters the record as 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding cannabis. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Gonzales, Raich and Supreme can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Gonzales v. Raich” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Gonzales, Raich and Supreme provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5582161. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2005, 1996, 1937 and 2002.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Gonzales v. Raich”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Gonzales v. Raich primary sources, Gonzales v. Raich archive and Gonzales research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Gonzales v. Raich”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Gonzales v. Raich” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.