The conduct of the DEA was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority - Case Study Example

On or about December 26, 2007 Mark Jones was arrested in his home. Results of the search and seizure yielded home grown marijuana which is legal under Florida law, but illegal under federal law. On that day, agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) entered the Jones residence, confiscated the marijuana, and arrested Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones claims that the DEA's action violated the Commerce Clause and that he was using the marijuana for a medical necessity. The issue is whether the conduct of the DEA was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes. (Rule) The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state. (Rule) (Application) Here, Jones' list of activities, to wit the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking. Moreover, this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market insofar as the growing of marijuana at issue in this case is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce.

In conclusion, coupled with the public interest considerations and the burden faced by Jones if, contrary to Florida law, he is denied access to medicinal marijuana, (presuming of course that medicinal reasons are the basis of the Florida statute) warrants the court to find in favor of Jones. Simply stated, Jones wins because the marijuana did not enter the stream of commerce and as such, DEA agents performed beyond the scope of their authority.