Canna Provisions, Inc., et al., v. Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General

Petitioners brought this case to challenge the validity of the Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that Congress may prohibit the purely local production, distribution, and possession of marijuana that is authorized by state law. A narrow majority held that the Court “need not determine whether” those “activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding,” id. at 22, and that Congress could rationally conclude that those activities would frustrate its goal of eliminating interstate marijuana. Multiple developments have undermined Raich’s rationale and outcome. Following Raich, the Court has applied a more rigorous standard to Congress’s regulation of traditionally local concerns. See, e.g., Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 560 (2012) (opinion of Roberts, C.J.) (holding that the individual mandate was not incidental to interstate regulation). Technological advances have made state-regulated marijuana distinguishable from interstate marijuana, and Congress and the Executive Branch have embraced that distinction with legislation and policies against prosecuting stateregulated marijuana activities. Dozens more states— 38 total—have enacted marijuana programs, and interstate commerce in marijuana has dropped. Question 1: Should the Court overrule Raich’s holding that Congress can regulate purely local economic activity if there is any “rational basis” that