Unit 1 SCOTUS FRQ Lopez & Raich

In 1996 California voters 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. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court, arguing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) exceeded Congress' constitutional power. 

In the ensuing case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court held that  Congress had authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary.  Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. … the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.  Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of use within the state “essential” to regulating the drug’s national market.  Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA.

Identify which constitutional clause is common to both Gonzales v. Raich  and U.S. v. Lopez (1995)

Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts in Gonzales v. Raich led to a different holding than U.S. v. Lopez.

Describe an action that members of the public who disagree with the holding in Gonzales v. Raich could take to limit its impact.