Timeline of the Case
Angel McClary Raich, et al. v. John Ashcroft, et al.
The Ashcroft v. Raich case was heard before the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2004 at 10:00 am, in Washington D.C.
SUPREME COURT DECISION TIMELINE: A decision in Ashcroft v. Raich most likely will come down around February 2005 or March 2005, about three to four months after the oral argument. The Court may also determine to sit for the purpose of announcing opinions on any other day, which often happens near the end of the term during the May-June period.
November 29, 2004. Raich Supreme Court Transcripts
If you would like to read the briefs filed in the United States Supreme Court Click Here...
October 13, 2004. Angel Raich filed her Merits Brief in the United States Supreme Court for the Respondents.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the Institute for Justice.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from Constitutional Law Scholars.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the State of California; Washington; and Maryland.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the State of Alabama; Louisiana; and Mississippi.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from Lymphoma Foundation of America; HIV Medicine; Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; American Medical Students Association; Dr. Barbara Roberts; and Irvin Rosenfeld.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Pain Relief Network, California Medical Association, AIDS Action Council; Compassion in Dying Federation; End-of-Life Choices; National Women's Health Network; Global Lawyers and Physicians; and AUTONOMY, Inc.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the California Nurses Association and DKT Liberty Project.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from Marijuana Policy Project and Rick Doblin, Ph.D.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the Cato Institute
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML); The NORML Foundation; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
October 13, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of Respondents from the Reason Foundation.
August 11, 2004. John Ashcroft filed his Merits Brief in the United States Supreme Court for the Petitioners.
August 11, 2004. A Joint Appendix was filed in the United States Supreme Court by both parties.
August 11, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in Support of the Petitioners Robert L. Dupont, M.D., Peter B. Bensinger and Herbert Kleber, M.D.
August 11, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in Support of the Petitioners from The Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., The Drug Free Schools Coalition, Save Our Society From Drugs, The International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse, The Institute on Global Drug Policy, and Students Taking Action Not Drugs, et al.
August 11, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in Support of the Petitioners from Mark E. Souder; U.S. Representative, Cass Ballenger; U.S. Representative, Dan Burton; U.S. Representative, Katherine Harris; U.S. Representative, Ernest J. Istook, Jr.; U.S. Representative, Jack Kingston; U.S. Representative, and U.S. Representative, Doug Ose
August 11 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in Support of the Petitioners from Community Rights Counsel
August 11, 2004. Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in Support of Neither Party
June 10, 2004. John Ashcroft, et al. filed their Reply Brief for the Petitioners in the Supreme Court.
June 7, 2004. Angel McClary Raich, et al. filed their Respondents' Brief in Opposition in the Supreme Court.
May 14, 2004. After nine weeks of negotiations, attorneys for both sides finally agreed upon the language for the following Preliminary Injunction.
United States District Court Judge Martin J. Jenkins filed the Preliminary Injunction Order that said, "In Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 Fed. 3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood that 'as applied to them, the [Controlled Substances Act] is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority.' Id. at 1227. According,
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, during the pendency of this action Defendants, and their agents and officers, and any person acting in consort with them, are hereby enjoined from arresting or prosecuting Plaintiffs Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, seizing their medical cannabis, forfeiting their property, or seeking civil or administrative sanctions against them with respect to the interstate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, use, and obtaining without charge of cannabis for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with State law, and which is not used for distribution, sale, or exchange." To read more of this Preliminary Injunction please go to the court document page of the www.angeljustice.org website http://angeljustice.org/article.php?list=type&type=11
April 20, 2004. United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA Administrator Karen Tady filed a Petition for Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Once the federal government filed their Petition for Certiorari the name of the case was changed from Raich v. Ashcroft to Ashcroft v. Raich. Ashcroft became the Petitioner and Raich became the Respondent.
March 11, 2004. The United States District Court filed notice stating, "YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT the Court has scheduled a Status Conference for Tuesday, April 6, 2004 @ 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins." Conference will be held in courtroom 11, on the 19th floor, U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.
March 8, 2004. We received notice from the District Court letting us know they received the Mandate from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
March 5, 2004. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued it's mandate stating, "APPEAL FROM the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the United States District Court for the United States Northern District of California (San Francisco) and was duly submitted. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is REVERSED AND REMANDED."
February 25, 2004. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals DENIED John Ashcroft, et al. on petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. In the rehearing was before Judges Pregerson, Beam, and Paez. "Judges Pregerson and Paez have voted to deny appellees petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Judge Beam voted to grant the petition for rehearing. Judge Beam is from the Eight Circuit. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judges has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc was DENIED."
January 23, 2004. Appellees filed petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
December 16, 2003. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules in support of patients and caregivers -- holding that the Federal government's actions against them are unconstitutional.
October 7, 2003. Hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case was heard before judges Pregerson, Beam (8th Circuit), and Paez.
August 12, 2003. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Motion to Assign Related Cases for Oral Argument on the Same Date and Before the Same Panel But to be Argued Separately.
July 25, 2003. Order to Assign Case to the Next Available Merits Panel.
July 10, 2003. Appellants Letter of Recent Decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case.
June 17, 2003. Amicus Curiae Letter from Butte County requesting to join the Amici Curiae Brief submitted by the State of California, Alameda County and the City of Oakland in Support of the Appellants.
June 11, 2003. Appellants file reply brief and then await a hearing date.
May 28, 2003. Appellees (Defendants) (Ashcroft & Hutchinson) filed their Answering Brief in the Court of Appeals.
April 23, 2003. Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their Opening Brief in the Court of Appeals.
April 29, 2003. Amicus Curiae Letter and Brief in Support of Appellants from the State of California, Alameda County, and the City of Oakland.
April 30, 2003. Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants from the California Medical Association and the California Nurses Association.
April 30, 2003. Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellants from Marijuana Policy Project, Rick Doblin, Ph.D; and Ethan Russo M.D.
March 12, 2003. The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
March 5, 2003. The Court filed an order denying the preliminary injunction, despite finding that "the equitable factors tip in plaintiff’s favor."
December 17, 2002. Hearing before United States District Judge Martin J. Jenkins on the motion for preliminary injunction.
October 9, 2002. Two medical cannabis patients, Angel McClary Raich, Diane Monson, and two caregivers, John Doe Number One, and John Doe Number Two filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against Attorney General John Ashcroft and former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson. McClary Raich and Monson are asking Judge Martin J. Jenkins to issue a preliminary injunction during the pendency of this action and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from arresting or prosecuting plaintiffs, seizing their medical cannabis, forfeiting their property, or seeking civil or administrative sanctions against them for their activities.
According to the complaint, John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson are unconstitutionally exceeding their authority by embarking on a campaign of seizing or forfeiting privately-grown intrastate medical cannabis from California patients and caregivers, arresting or prosecuting such patients, mounting paramilitary raids against patients and caregivers, harassing patients and caregivers, and taking other civil or administrative actions against them.
If you find a broken link please email us at info@angeljustice.org
Copyright © 2011 Angel Raich. All rights reserved.
Angel McClary Raich after the United States Supreme Court Hears her case No. 03-1454: Gonzales v. Raich 2004-05. Angel just spoke to a large crowd of media reporters and she’s now on her way to another press conference put on by Angel Wings Patient OutReach, Inc. November 24, 2004
Right: Attorney Robert Raich (Angel’s ex-husband), Lead Plaintiff Angel Raich, Attorney Randy Barnett, Plaintiff Diane Monson, and Attorney David Michael standing on the steps of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco California after Oral Arguments. 2003
The Raich v. Gonzales Case 2007 Update
Join Angel Raich on these social-media networks to stay in touch with Angel and informed medical cannabis world.
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Has your property and/or assets been seized in a federal forfeiture case, commerces clause case, federal raid, federal arrest or any other type of issue where the Gonzales v. Raich case is being used?
Your case does not have to involve medical cannabis.
If so, we want to know about it!
Please email Angel Raich using the link below.
October 5, 2013
October 5, 2013,
I, Angel McClary Raich, did try to stop ObamaCare & ObamaCare's Legal Ramifications - We Citizens Now Face with the Governmental Shutdown! A little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down!! <Read More>