The case considers whether Congress has the authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to prohibit personal cultivation and use of marijuana. The government will argue that Congress has broad power to regulate interstate commerce, including control over distribution of goods like marijuana. However, Molly Migraine will counter that neither the text of the Necessary and Proper Clause nor precedent explicitly allows Congress to regulate purely personal possession. The court finds both sides present plausible arguments, as the rules do not clearly resolve whether this is a necessary and proper exercise of Congress's power over interstate commerce.

1. Class 08: Problem of the day 03
Case: Migraine v. the United States
Issue: Whether the CSA's prohibition on the purely personal cultivation and use of marijuana is a
valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Rule:
Article I, Section 8, clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;”. Continuing Clause 3: “[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .”
Application:
The government will argue that the CSA's powers under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the
power to control and regulate the distribution of certain special goods, including marijuana (for
any use). Furthermore, the McCulloch v. Maryland judgment established a long-standing
precedent allowing Congress to make whatever legislation required, i.e. proper and lawful, to
accomplish federal policy objectives and the specified powers under Article I, Section 8.
Molly Migraine, on the other hand, will argue that neither the wording of the Necessary and Proper
Clause nor the McCulloch case explicitly states that Congress has the jurisdiction to regulate
personal marijuana possession. She may argue that the CSA and federal policy are operating in
bad faith since such stringent rules on an individual level are inappropriate for regulating interstate

2. trade and markets on a national scale. Mrs. Migraine may argue that the CSA policy is more of an
aggressive response to social behavior that is regarded undesirable, rather than an endeavor to
preserve markets and interstate commerce health.
Conclusion-Holdings: This is a hard case because the governing rule does not clearly and
decisively resolve the legal issue posed by the facts: Molly and the government both have plausible
arguments that this exercise of power is (or is not) a necessary and proper exercise of Congress's
Commerce Clause power. Since Congress has the power to adopt legislation or establish a
regulatory body to implement the policy. While it is arguable that the rule exceeds Congress'
authority in the case of "bad faith," it is nonetheless a legitimate attempt to combat a wealthy and
troublesome illicit drug market.