Migraine v. the United States. Recall that Article I, Section 8, clause 8 ("the Commerce Clause") grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce ... among the several states." For present purposes, "commerce ... among the several states" essentially means interstate trade. The federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits the use, possession, manufacture, and distribution of certain drugs, including marijuana, whether or not the drugs in question have ever traveled in or are intended for sale in interstate commerce. The theory behind the Act is that prohibiting the use, possession, and manufacture of illegal drugs is necessary to carry into effect a prohibition on their interstate sale and shipment, which Congress is clearly empowered to enact under the Commerce Clause. Otherwise, it would be too easy for persons to possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs in interstate trade to evade prosecution. Besides, given the laws of supply and demand, the manufacture and distribution of marijuana in one state will affect the price of marijuana in neighboring statesand, thus, will likely affect the flow of marijuana across state lines, which again, Congress unquestionably has the power to regulate. Molly Migraine is a California resident who cultivates marijuana for her own personal medical use. Since none of the marijuana she grows, possesses or consumes leaves her three-acre farm in Humboldt County, Migraine does not believe that Congress can constitutionally regulate these activities.

What is the issue in this case?

What rule will use in this case?

What are the best arguments for both sides?

What is the result? Is Migraine likely to prevail in court on this claim?