The five-justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, said it would prevent medical marijuana in virtually all situations. Agreed to decide whether police may prosecute new crimes with evidence seized from homes of criminals who consented to blanket searches as a condition of probation. Thomas wrote that Congress considered whether marijuana had any societal value when it banned the drug. Justice Stephen Breyer, whose brother was the district court judge who handled the case, abstained. The dispute set federal interests in preventing drug abuse against public-health efforts to give people with complex diseases access to alternative therapies.
Advocates say marijuana can relieve pain, spur the appetite and stop vomiting.
Groups favoring medical marijuana noted that federal prosecutors rarely target sick people who use small amounts of the drug. They said the government would have difficulty persuading a jury to convict an ill marijuana user, yet vowed to ask Congress to exempt patients who have no alternatives. The Justice Department had no immediate response. The case involved an Oakland cooperative that distributes marijuana to people whose physicians recommend it. But Justice John Paul Stevens, with David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the case required a ruling affecting only distributors.