Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot.Click to learn more!

Wickard v. Filburn

From Ballotpedia
New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Wickard v. Filburn
Reference: 317 U.S. 111
Term: 1942
Important Dates
Argued: May 4, 1942
Reargued: October 13, 1942
Decided: November 9, 1942
Outcome
United States District Court reversed
Majority
Hugo Black •William Douglas •Felix Frankfurter •Robert H. Jackson •Frank Murphy •Stanley Reed •Owen Roberts •Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

Wickard v. Filburn is a case decided on November 9, 1942 by theUnited States Supreme Court. It involved a farmer who was fined by the United States Department of Agriculture and contested the federal government's authority to regulate his activities. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of aUnited States District Court, holding that the farmer's activities were within the scope of Congress' power to regulate because they could have an effect on interstate commerce by affecting national wheat prices and the national wheat market.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Roscoe Filburn, owner and operator of a small farm in Ohio, sought to block enforcement of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 after the federal agriculture department assessed a fine against him for producing too much wheat during a growing season.
  • The issue: Does Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce include the authority to regulate local wheat production?
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court held that Congress has the authority to regulate activities that can affect the national wheat market and wheat prices; since the activities of Filburn and many farmers in a similar situation could ultimately affect the national wheat market and wheat prices, they were within Congress' power to regulate.


    • In brief: During the 1940-41 growing season, Roscoe Filburn, owner and operator of a small farm in Ohio, grew a larger crop of wheat than had been allotted to him by the United States Secretary of Agriculture under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The department assessed a fine against Filburn for his excess crop. Filburn refused to pay the fine and sued Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard, arguing that his farming activities were outside the scope of the federal government's authority to regulate and further that the department had violated his constitutional right to due process.

    Why it matters: In this case, the Supreme Court assessed the scope of Congress' authority to regulate economic activities under the commerce clause contained inArticle I, Section 8 of theUnited States Constitution, which reads in part: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The court held that this power includes the authority to regulate activities that take place within a state if those activities affect interstate commerce and even if the activities do not meet a particular definition ofcommerce.

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    •Judicial deference
    •Nondelegation
    •Executive control
    •Procedural rights
    •Agency dynamics
    Click here for more coverage of theadministrative state on Ballotpedia

    The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended on May 26, 1941, directed the United States Secretary of Agriculture to set an annual limit on the number of acres available for the next crop of wheat. Acreage would then be apportioned among states and counties and eventually to individual farms. These provisions were intended to limit wheat surpluses and shortages and the corresponding rises and falls in wheat prices. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture was also directed by the law to implement a national quota on wheat marketing in the event that the total wheat supply in one year would exceed what the act defined as the domestic consumption and export of a normal year by 35 percent or more.[2][1]

    Roscoe Filburn, the owner and operator of a small farm in Montgomery Country, Ohio, planted and harvested a total of 23 acres of wheat during the 1940-41 growing season, 11.9 acres more than the 11.1 acres allotted to him by the government. He harvested 239 bushels more than he was originally allotted for that season. Under the terms of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Filburn was assessed a penalty for his excess wheat production at a rate of 49 cents per bushel, a total fine of $117.11. Filburn refused to pay the fine and filed a lawsuit in federal district court against U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard and several county and state officials from Ohio.[2][1]

    Filburn claimed that in a typical year, he would sell some of his wheat crop, use some as feed for his poultry and livestock, use some to make flour for home consumption, and keep the rest for seeding his next crop. His lawsuit argued that these activities were local in character and outside the scope of Congress' authority to regulate. According to the majority opinion in this case by Supreme Court JusticeRobert H. Jackson, Filburn "sought to enjoin enforcement against himself of the marketing penalty ... [and] sought a declaratory judgment that the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Act, as amended and applicable to him, were unconstitutional because not sustainable under the Commerce Clause or consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."[2][1]

    Oral argument

    Oral arguments were held on May 4, 1942, and again on October 13, 1942. The case was decided on November 9, 1942.[1]

    Decision

    The Supreme Court decided 8-0 in favor of Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard and the other government officials named in the case. JusticeRobert H. Jackson delivered the opinion of the court, joined byChief Justice Harlan F. Stone and JusticesHugo Black,William Douglas,Felix Frankfurter,Frank Murphy,Stanley Reed, andOwen Roberts.[1]

    During the time that the case was reargued and decided, there was a vacancy on the court, left by the resignation of JusticeJames Byrnes on October 3, 1942.[8]

    Opinions

    Federalism
    Federalism Icon 200x200.png
    •Key terms
    •    Court cases
    •Major arguments
    •State responses to federal mandates
    •State oversight of federal grants
    •Federalism by the numbers
    •Index

    Opinion of the court

    Writing for a unanimous court, JusticeRobert H. Jackson cited the Supreme Court's past decisions inGibbons v. Ogden,United States v. Darby, and theShreveport Rate Cases to argue that the economic effect of an activity, rather than its definition or character, is decisive for determining if the activity can be regulated byCongress under the commerce clause contained inArticle I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Jackson wrote:[2]

    “The Court's recognition of the relevance of the economic effects in the application of the Commerce Clause ... has made the mechanical application of legal formulas no longer feasible. Once an economic measure of the reach of the power granted to Congress in the Commerce Clause is accepted, questions of federal power cannot be decided simply by finding the activity in question to be 'production,' nor can consideration of its economic effects be foreclosed by calling them 'indirect.' ... Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. ... But even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'[9]”
    —JusticeRobert H. Jackson, majority opinion inWickard v. Filburn (1942)[2]


    Justice Jackson argued that despite the small, local nature of Filburn's farming, the combined effect of many farmers acting in a similar manner would have a significant impact on wheat prices nationally. Thus, Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the authority to regulate local activities that might affect some aspect of interstate commerce, such as prices:[2]

    “That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. ... It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. ... The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.[9]”
    —JusticeRobert H. Jackson, majority opinion inWickard v. Filburn (1942)[2]


    Justice Jackson wrote that the government's authority to regulate commerce includes the authority to restrict or mandate economic behavior:[2]

    “It is said, however, that this Act, forcing some farmers into the market to buy what they could provide for themselves, is an unfair promotion of the markets and prices of specializing wheat growers. It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated, and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. The conflicts of economic interest between the regulated and those who advantage by it are wisely left under our system to resolution by the Congress under its more flexible and responsible legislative process. Such conflicts rarely lend themselves to judicial determination. And with the wisdom, workability, or fairness, of the plan of regulation, we have nothing to do.[9]”
    —JusticeRobert H. Jackson, majority opinion inWickard v. Filburn (1942)[2]


    Justice Jackson's opinion also dismissed Filburn's challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act on due process grounds:[2]

    “The statute is also challenged as a deprivation of property without due process of law contrary to the Fifth Amendment, both because of its regulatory effect on the appellee and because of its alleged retroactive effect. The court below sustained the plea on the ground of forbidden retroactivity, 'or, in the alternative, that the equities of the case as shown by the record favor the plaintiff.' An Act of Congress is not to be refused application by the courts as arbitrary and capricious and forbidden by the Due Process Clause merely because it is deemed in a particular case to work an inequitable result. ... That appellee is the worse off for the aggregate of this legislation does not appear; it only appears that, if he could get all that the Government gives and do nothing that the Government asks, he would be better off than this law allows. To deny him this is not to deny him due process of law.[9]”
    —JusticeRobert H. Jackson, majority opinion inWickard v. Filburn (1942)[2]

    Impact

    In this case, the Supreme Court assessed the scope of Congress' authority to regulate economic activities under the commerce clause contained inArticle I, Section 8 of theUnited States Constitution. This section reads in part: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." InWickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that this power includes the authority to regulate activities that take place within a state if those activities affect interstate commerce and even if the activities do not meet a particular definition ofcommerce.[6][7][5][3]

    TheInstitute for Justice, anonprofit law firm that advocates for limited government, described the effects of the decision inWickard v. Filburn in the following way:[3]

    “There is now no distinction between 'interstate' and 'intrastate' commerce to place any limits on Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause to micromanage economic life. In the 70 years between Wickard andNFIB v. Sebelius in 2012, the Supreme Court found only two narrow laws to lie beyondCongress' constitutionally enumerated powers.[9]”
    —Institute for Justice, "Wickard v. Filburn (1942)"[3]


    The ruling inWickard featured prominently in the Supreme Court's decision inUnited States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and curtailed Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑1.01.11.21.31.41.5Oyez, "Wickard v. Filburn," accessed November 14, 2017
    2. ↑2.002.012.022.032.042.052.062.072.082.092.102.11Justia, "Wickard v. Filburn," accessed November 14, 2017
    3. ↑3.03.13.23.3Institute for Justice, "Wickard v. Filburn (1942)," accessed November 17, 2017
    4. ↑Legal Information Institute, "Wickard v. Filburn," accessed November 27, 2017
    5. ↑5.05.1U.S. ConLawpedia (Georgia State University), "Wickard v. Filburn (1942)," accessed November 27, 2017
    6. ↑6.06.1Casebriefs, "Wickard v. Filburn," accessed November 27, 2017
    7. ↑7.07.1Casebriefs, "Wickard v. Filburn," accessed November 27, 2017
    8. ↑The Green Papers, "Justices of the United States Supreme Court (by Term of Court)," updated October 2, 2017
    9. ↑9.09.19.29.39.4Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act •Antiquities Act •Civil Service Reform Act •Clayton Antitrust Act •Communications Act of 1934 •Congressional Review Act •Electronic Freedom of Information Act •Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 •Federal Housekeeping Statute •Federal Reserve Act •Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 •Freedom of Information Act •Government in the Sunshine Act •Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 •Information Quality Act •Interstate Commerce Act •National Labor Relations Act •Paperwork Reduction Act •Pendleton Act •Privacy Act of 1974 •Regulatory Flexibility Act •REINS Act •REINS Act (Wisconsin) •Securities Act of 1933 •Securities Exchange Act of 1934 •Sherman Antitrust Act •Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act •Truth in Regulating Act •Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner •A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States •Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp •Auer v. Robbins •Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe •Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California •Field v. Clark •Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation •Humphrey's Executor v. United States •Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha •J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States •Lucia v. SEC •Marshall v. Barlow's •Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency •Mistretta v. United States •National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius •National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company •National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. •Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan •Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation •Skidmore v. Swift & Co. •United States v. Lopez •United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. •Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board •Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council •Wayman v. Southard •Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service •Whitman v. American Trucking Associations •Wickard v. Filburn •Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) •Administrative judge •Administrative law •Administrative law judge •Administrative state •Arbitrary-or-capricious test •Auer deference •Barrier to entry •Bootleggers and Baptists •Chevron deference (doctrine) •Civil servant •Civil service •Code of Federal Regulations •Codify (administrative state) •Comment period •Compliance costs •Congressional Record •Coordination (administrative state) •Deference (administrative state) •Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) •Enabling statute •Ex parte communication (administrative state) •Executive agency •Federal law •Federal Register •Federalism •Final rule •Formal rulemaking •Formalism (law) •Functionalism (law) •Guidance (administrative state) •Hybrid rulemaking •Incorporation by reference •Independent federal agency •Informal rulemaking •Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) •Major rule •Negotiated rulemaking •Nondelegation doctrine •OIRA prompt letter •Organic statute •Pragmatism (law) •Precautionary principle •Promulgate •Proposed rule •Publication rulemaking •Regulatory budget •Regulatory capture •Regulatory dark matter •Regulatory impact analysis •Regulatory policy officer •Regulatory reform officer •Regulatory review •Rent seeking •Retrospective regulatory review •Risk assessment (administrative state) •Rulemaking •Separation of powers •Significant regulatory action •Skidmore deference •Statutory authority •Substantive law and procedural law •Sue and settle •Sunset provision •Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions •United States Code •United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Ballotpedia
    Editorial Content
    Josh Altic, Director of Content •Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data •Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features •Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures •Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News •Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion •Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections •Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law •Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events •Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy •Andrew Bahl •Jaclyn Beran •Marielle Bricker •Joseph Brusgard •Emma Burlingame •Kelly Coyle •Jon Dunn •Victoria Edwards •Thomas Ellis •Nicole Fisher •Thomas Grobben •Brianna Hosea •Molly Kehoe •Tyler King •Glorie Martinez •Norm Leahy, Senior Editor •Nathan Maxwell •Jimmy McAllister •Brandon McCauley •Andrew McNair •Ellie Mikus •Mackenzie Murphy •Kaley Platek •Samantha Post •Adam Powell •Annelise Reinwald •Spencer Richardson •Victoria Rose •Briana Ryan •Myj Saintyl •Maddy Salucka •Emma Soukup •Alexis Thacker •Mina Vogel •Samuel Wonacott •Trenton Woodcox