Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-645_9p6b.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

Statement of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

STANDING AKIMBO, LLC, ET AL., v. UNITED STATES 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 20–645.  Decided June 28, 2021 

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 

  Statement  of  JUSTICE  THOMAS  respecting  the  denial  of 
certiorari. 

Sixteen years ago, this Court held that Congress’ power 
to  regulate interstate  commerce  authorized  it  “to  prohibit 
the  local  cultivation  and  use  of  marijuana.”    Gonzales  v. 
Raich,  545  U. S.  1,  5  (2005).    The  reason,  the  Court  ex-
plained,  was  that  Congress  had  “enacted  comprehensive 
legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible 
commodity” and that “exemption[s]” for local use could un-
dermine this “comprehensive” regime.  Id., at 22–29.  The 
Court stressed that Congress had decided “to prohibit  en-
tirely the possession or use of [marijuana]” and had “desig-
nate[d] marijuana as contraband for any purpose.”  Id., at 
24–27  (first  emphasis  added).  Prohibiting  any  intrastate
use  was  thus,  according  to  the  Court,  “ ‘necessary  and 
proper’ ” to avoid a “gaping hole” in Congress’ “closed regu-
latory system.”  Id., at 13, 22 (citing U. S. Const., Art. I, §8). 
Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, fed-
eral policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined 
its  reasoning.  Once  comprehensive,  the  Federal  Govern-
ment’s current approach is a  half-in, half-out regime that 
simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. 
This  contradictory  and  unstable  state  of  affairs  strains 
basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the un-
wary.

This case is a prime example.  Petitioners operate a med-