# Gonzales v. Raich **Status: stub — expand.** **Decided June 6, 2005 · 6–3 · Stevens, J.** Held that Congress may criminalize the cultivation and possession of marijuana grown at home for personal medical use under state law, applying [[Wickard v. Filburn]]. Homegrown marijuana is economic activity — production and consumption of a commodity — and its aggregate effect on the national illicit market is substantial, so the Controlled Substances Act's application to it is a rational means of regulating that market. That the plaintiffs complied with California's Compassionate Use Act was irrelevant to the federal power question. Scalia concurred on [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] grounds rather than the substantial-effects test; O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented, with O'Connor warning the decision let Congress reach anything by defining the market broadly enough. The case defines the current federal-state marijuana standoff: federal prohibition remains valid and state legalization remains valid, because [[Anti-Commandeering Doctrine]] means states need not enforce federal drug law and DEA lacks the manpower to. ## See also - [[Wickard v. Filburn]] · [[United States v. Lopez]] · [[Federalism Powers Crosswalk]]