In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court ruled against two California residents with small homegrown marijuana operations for medicinal use. This was permitted under California law but was a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which made the production or transport of marijuana a federal crime. The main legal question was not whether marijuana affected or had a connection to interstate commerce (both sides admitted it did), but rather whether these small-scale medicinal grows could be punished under the CSA given that they were clearly for personal use by the appellants. The precedent argued extensively in oral arguments was:

a. McCulloch v. Maryland
b. Gibbons v. Ogden
c. Wickard v. Filburn
d. Shreveport Rate Cases
e. None of the other answers are correct

Personal-use activities can be regulated if they impact interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court ruled against California residents growing marijuana for personal medicinal use, despite its legality under California law. The main legal question was whether these small-scale grows could be regulated under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which prohibits marijuana production. The precedent extensively argued in oral arguments was Wickard v. Filburn, where the Supreme Court held that even personal-use activities could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if they affected interstate commerce.