SCOTUS U.S. v Lopez and Gonzales v Raich

In 1996 California voter passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. On August 15, 2002, agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) destroyed six marijuana plants belonging to Diane Monson. Monson was prescribed marijuana to treat her chronic back pain. Together with activist and fellow cannabis patient Angel Raich, Monson sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional when applied to medical marijuana use solely within a state's borders. New U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

In Gonzales v Raich (2005), the Supreme Court held that Congress had the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana despite state law to the contrary. Delivering the opinion of the court, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that past court precedent "firmly established" Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on multi-state financial activity. Congress could ban local marijuana use because it affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.

Based on the information above, respond to the following questions.

Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both United States v Lopez (1995) and Gonzales v Raich (2005)

Explain how the facts in United States v Lopez led to a different holding than in Gonzales v Raich

Explain an action that COngress could take to respond to the Gonzales v Raich decision if it disagreed with the decision