October Term 2004 · Docket 03-1454
Does federal law ban homegrown medical marijuana?
The dispute centers on whether federal drug laws override state medical marijuana programs.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Paul Clement argued Congress comprehensively regulates the national drug market.
Paul Barnett argued the activity is non-economic and wholly intrastate.
Justice Scalia noted Congress does not want interstate commerce in marijuana.
Justice Stevens asked why the government relies on the possibility of diversion.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-54 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the reach of federal commerce power over local drug use.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 29, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-54 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-54
What each side wants
The federal government wants to enforce its drug ban on all users.
The patients want to grow and use marijuana under state law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
What each side says
The government argues Congress regulates the entire national drug market.
The patients argue local medical use is non-economic and purely intrastate.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if these two patients represent typical users.
Justice O'Connor asked if prior cases limit Congress's broad statutory language here.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-54 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between federal drug enforcement and state medical policies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-5 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 25-54 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 25-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 43-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 43-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-54 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-35
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.