The precedent upon which
the federal government’s ability to govern interstate commerce, Wickard
v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, is premised upon the fact that the plaintiff in
that case registered in a federal program; because defendant never took
advantage of a federal program, and because there is no federal program
regulating medical marijuana, the Wickard basis of jurisdiction is
inapplicable here.
Wickard
v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is often considered to be the controlling
precedent upon which Congress has relied to expand the definition of
interstate commerce. The common notion is that nearly any aspect of
commerce can be regulated if a piece of wheat could be governed by the
federal government. In fact, in that case, the federal government had
developed a subsidy system to help farmers in a particular field, that of
wheat farming. One farmer, the plaintiff in the Wickard, 317 U.S.
111, filed a complaint asking to enjoin enforcement of the Agricultural
Enforcement Act. The Act set up quotas for farmers and imposed penalties
for farmers who while taking advantage of the federal subsidies dolled out
by the agency, wanted to be immunized from the penalties associated from
not following the conditions required to take advantage of these benefits.
There
is no federal government organization regulating medical marijuana.
Therefore, the federal government lacks the jurisdictional basis asserted
in Wickard, 317 U.S. 111. As the Wickard court wrote,
acknowledging the role the plaintiff had in bringing about federal
jurisdiction over his activity, “We can hardly find a denial of due
process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful
that appellee’s burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is
hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it
subsidizes.” 317 U.S. 111 at 130.
