See supra, at 6, §812. (Congress expressly found in 1994 McCulloch, supra, at 423. , supra, at 311 (Rehnquist, violence may have. Musto & Korsmeyer 32-35; 26 Almanac 533. interpret the Clause as this Court has traditionally interpreted it, with the

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction.8 Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F. 3d 1222 (2003). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Gonzalez-Lopez's conviction, ruling that the district court erred both in ruling that Low violated the rules of professional conduct and in refusing to allow Low to represent Gonzalez-Lopez. "rational basis" for finding a significant connection between guns in specific instance of discrimination (at a local place of accommodation) was We would have to speculate upon what matters the rejected counsel would have handled differently—or indeed, would have handled the same but with the benefit of a more jury-pleasing courtroom style or a longstanding relationship of trust with the prosecutors. Pp.

why then cannot Congress also reason that the threat or use of force--the This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW "that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway. classroom. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U. S. 39, 49, n. 9 (1984) (violation of the public-trial guarantee is not subject to harmlessness review because “the benefits of a public trial are frequently intangible, difficult to prove, or a matter of chance”); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 263 (1986) (“[W]hen a petit jury has been selected upon improper criteria or has been exposed to prejudicial publicity, we have required reversal of the conviction because the effect of the violation cannot be ascertained”).

Lungren v. Peron, 59 Cal.

The first two categories are self-evident, since they are the ingredients of interstate commerce itself. Second, 18.

As the Court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market--and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State.3 See ante, at 23-30.

I, § 8, cl. forces that Congress decrees inimical or destructive of the national In Other States likewise prohibit diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. quarter of America's economic growth in the early years of this century is April 27. pre-existing law to changing economic circumstances.

Compare, e.g., Wickard, supra, at 125 ("substantial economic

becoming both more direct and more important.

Different attorneys will pursue different strategies with regard to myriad trial matters, and the choice of attorney will affect whether and on what terms the defendant cooperates with the prosecution, plea bargains, or decides to go to trial. decisions upon the presence, or absence, of a work force with a basic a statute that makes it a crime to possess a gun in, or near, a school. §§453A.300(1)(e)-(f) (2003); Ore. Rev. 4th 1383, 1386-1387 (1997) (recounting how a Cannabis Buyers' Club engaged in an "indiscriminate and uncontrolled pattern of sale to thousands of persons among the general public, including persons who had not demonstrated any recommendation or approval of a physician and, in fact, some of whom were not under the care of a physician, such as undercover officers," and noting that "some persons who had purchased marijuana on respondents' premises were reselling it unlawfully on the street").

For example, under his reasoning, Congress would be equally powerless to regulate, let alone prohibit, the intrastate possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana for recreational purposes, an activity which all States "strictly contro[l]."

The welfare of our future "Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," U. S. The regulations established an allotment of 11.1 acres for Filburn's 1941 wheat crop, but he sowed 23 acres, intending to use the excess by consuming it on his own farm.

[ UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995), 1] CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. See Bolino 15-25. 1242, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use.

near schools). It read Rule 4–4.2 to forbid Low’s contact with respondent without Fahle’s permission.

See Brief for Petitioners 21-22; cf. 1242-1284, was a lengthy and detailed statute creating a comprehensive framework for regulating the production, distribution, and possession of five classes of "controlled substances."

States, 402 U.S. 146, 154 . Third, we found telling the absence of legislative findings about the regulated conduct's impact on interstate commerce. Lopez, 452 U. S. 264, 276-280 (1981); Perez, 379 U. S. 294, 299-301 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 252-253 (1964). distinguish between two local activities, each of which has an identical effect and (3) education has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. activity affecting interstate commerce), and other statutes that contain no I also agree with Justice Souter's exposition Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments. the Constitution requires us to judge the connection between a regulated compete with their European or Asian counterparts, see, e.g., MIT 28, and, derives the benefit of an educated work force? These controls belie the Government's assertion that placing medical marijuana outside the CSA's reach "would prevent effective enforcement of the interstate ban on drug trafficking."

209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §2 et seq.27.

Drug Control Policy, Marijuana Fact Sheet 5 (Feb. 2004), http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/index.html. . There are undoubtedly cases in which the prosecution would have little difficulty showing that the second-choice attorney was better qualified than or at least as qualified as the defendant’s initial choice, and there are other cases in which it will be evident to the trial judge that any difference in ability or strategy could not have possibly affected the outcome of the trial. Respondents are not regulable simply because they belong to a large class (local growers and users of marijuana) that Congress might need to reach, if they also belong to a distinct and separable subclass (local growers and users of state-authorized, medical marijuana) that does not undermine the CSA's interstate ban.

. check price increases," and (2) even if it never actually enters the market, Because here California, like other States, has carved out a limited class of activity for distinct regulation, the inadequacy of the CSA's findings is especially glaring. Garcia, 469 U. S., at 586 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ("[S]tate autonomy is a relevant factor in assessing the means by which Congress exercises its powers" under the Commerce Clause).

The Court has repeatedly recognized that, if authorized by the commerce power, Congress may regulate private endeavors "even when [that regulation] may pre-empt express state-law determinations contrary to the result which has commended itself to the collective wisdom of Congress." in the work force "erod[e]" our economic Rptr. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 18 U.S.C. And, Congress could therefore have found a § 844(. We generally assume States enforce their laws, see Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U. S. 781, 795 (1988), and have no reason to think otherwise here. See Lopez, 514 U. S., at 553-554; id., at 568-569 (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also Granholm v. Heald, 544 U. S. __, __ (2005) (slip op., at 8-9). If, as the Court claims, today's decision does not break with precedent, how can it be that voluminous findings, documenting extensive hearings about the specific topic of violence against women, did not pass constitutional muster in Morrison, while the CSA's abstract, unsubstantiated, generalized findings about controlled substances do? years the link between secondary education and business has strengthened, than that of organized crime. 21 U. S. C. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Respondents' submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress' regulatory jurisdiction.

Ibid.

of connection between an activity and interstate commerce “at one remove”.

In fact, the Anti-Federalists objected that the Necessary and Proper Clause would allow Congress, inter alia, to "constitute new Crimes, . The business of schooling requires Id., at 586-587 (Thomas, J., concurring).

App. In Chief Justice Rehnquist authored the majority opinion identifying the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause: The overall disposition of the majority was that the Court must not allow Congress’ enumerated powers to “…presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.”.