Gonzalez v Raich’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
530 federal appellate · 179 district · 143 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,533 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Lopez v. Gonzales (2006), Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
530 federal appellate · 179 district · 143 state decisions — followed in 20 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedRaich v. Ashcroft (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 16 U.S.C. § 668 · 18 U.S.C. § 175 (Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989) · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 901 (§ 706 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Brecht v. Abrahamson · United States v. Lopez · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Cited together with United States v. Lopez · United States v. Morrison · Wickard v. Filburn · Perez v. United States · United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,533 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of inter- ' state commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, ... Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.