IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this case ends up doing anything. The case is subject to "rational basis" review, the weakest form of review. As is mentione

IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this case ends up doing anything. The case is subject to "rational basis" review, the weakest form of review. As is mentioned in the article, the government correctly argues that congress doesn't even have to be right, it just has to have a "rational basis" for its action. In fact, the so long as the court can imagine a rational basis of action, even one that is totally unrelated to the legislative history, the government can prevail. The government can easily argue a rational basis by saying "Drugs are bad mkay? While there may be some medicinal uses (which we deny), even if they existed we think that there are better substitutes distilled by pharmaceutical companies in each case presented by the plaintiffs. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting the health of the nation. Therefore, by demonstrating a legitimate interest and precluding medicinal uses, schedule I is rational." Not that I believe this is good policy mind you, just that arguing under these conditions is unlikely to lead to change. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-la...