Opinion ID: 3031431
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The use of channels of interstate activity;

Text: 2. The instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce even though the threat may come only from intrastate commerce; and 3. Those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. This court in Rodia discussed the three categories above and concluded that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the intrastate possession of pornography has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. There is nothing in Morrison to suggest that this analysis was not correct. In Raich, decided June 6, 2005, the respondents (Raich, et al.), California residents who both used doctor recommended marijuana, relied heavily on Lopez and Morrison in 7 seeking to enjoin the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from enforcing the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to the extent it prevents them from the manufacture, possession or use of marijuana for personal medical care because it would violate the Commerce Clause. The Court held initially that Lopez and Morrison had nothing to do with commerce. It concluded that even though the case for exemption in Raich was that a locally cultivated product that was used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation, given the findings in the CSA and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, such a claim for exemption is foreclosed. Analytically, the same conclusion was reached in Rodia where we held after an exhaustive analysis by the late Chief Judge Becker “that Congress rationally could have believed that child pornography that did not itself travel in interstate commerce has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and is thus subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause.” Rodia at 479. We see no reason to disturb that ruling.