United States Ninth Circuit

In a case involving medical marijuana seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act, and a declaration that medical necessity precludes enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against plaintiffs, denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits on her medical necessity claim for an injunction; 2) for purposes of a substantive due process claim, although changes in state law reveal a clear trend towards the protection of medical marijuana use, the asserted right has not yet gained the traction on a national scale to be deemed fundamental; 3) the Controlled Substances Act, a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power, does not violate the Tenth Amendment; and 4) a claim based on the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act was waived.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/27/2006
• Decided 03/14/2007
• Published 03/14/2007

Judges

• PREGERSON, Circuit Judge., Before PREGERSON, C. ARLEN BEAM, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert A. Raich, (briefed) Oakland, CA and Randy E. Barnett, (argued) Boston University School of Law, Boston, MA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, MA, for the defendants-appellees.