How did Gonzalez v. Raich challenge federal authority?

The case of Gonzalez v. Raich centered on the cultivation and use of medical marijuana in California, which was legal under state law, but prohibited under federal law. The argument that state-grown marijuana had no impact on interstate commerce was central to the challenge against federal authority.

The plaintiffs contended that the marijuana they were growing and using for personal medical reasons did not enter the interstate market, and thus should be considered outside the purview of the federal government's ability to regulate under the Commerce Clause. This claim directly confronted the federal government’s position, which held that any activity related to marijuana, even if strictly intrastate, could be regulated due to its potential cumulative effect on interstate commerce.

This nuanced argument raised significant questions about the limits of federal power regarding state laws and the extent of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the federal government did have the authority to regulate even locally grown marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act because of its potential effects on national markets.

Understanding this context is crucial as it illustrates the ongoing tension between state rights and federal authority, particularly regarding issues of personal liberties and safety in light of differing state laws.