Wickard v. Filburn
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Facts: In the year 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt and congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). This act set a limit for the total amount of wheat that can be put into the interstate commerce. The act further implemented penalties for violation of the law. Farmers had a set amount of wheat for which they could produce each year. Filburn (Plaintiff) had produced a large amount of wheat that surpassed the Federal limit. Due to the abundance in wheat, Filburn sold his wheat surplus below the market place price and kept the remainder for himself. The plaintiff’s actions was later detected by the government and was assessed a fine. In his defense Filburn stated that congress was trying to regulate his wheat production that was intended for personal use. To support his claim, he went on …show more content…
Does Filburn have the right to use excess wheat for personal use without entering it into commerce?
2. Does Congress have the ability/right to regulate the total production of a good, even if that good is not sold or bought across state borders?
3. May government have the right to entirely regulate intrastate activities under the Agricultural Adjustment Act?
4. Does production become part of interstate commerce or is it to be considered a different entity of its own?
Ruling(s):
1. Filburn does not have the right to produce as much wheat as he wants. To do so is a violation of the law and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
2. Yes, the law established by congress (AAA) gives them the right to establish commerce regulations.
3. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate interaction, which includes the ability to regulate the entire product price and all of the ongoing activities that affect that price.
Reasoning:
1. The court’s ruling went on to state that government does hold the authority to have regulation intrastate commerce, with the assumption that it would have an adverse effect on
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Facts: In the year 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt and congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). This act set a limit for the total amount of wheat that can be put into the interstate commerce. The act further implemented penalties for violation of the law. Farmers had a set amount of wheat for which they could produce each year. Filburn (Plaintiff) had produced a large amount of wheat that surpassed the Federal limit. Due to the abundance in wheat, Filburn sold his wheat surplus below the market place price and kept the remainder for himself. The plaintiff’s actions was later detected by the government and was assessed a fine. In his defense Filburn stated that congress was trying to regulate his wheat production that was intended for personal use. To support his claim, he went on …show more content…
Does Filburn have the right to use excess wheat for personal use without entering it into commerce?
2. Does Congress have the ability/right to regulate the total production of a good, even if that good is not sold or bought across state borders?
3. May government have the right to entirely regulate intrastate activities under the Agricultural Adjustment Act?
4. Does production become part of interstate commerce or is it to be considered a different entity of its own?
Ruling(s):
1. Filburn does not have the right to produce as much wheat as he wants. To do so is a violation of the law and the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
2. Yes, the law established by congress (AAA) gives them the right to establish commerce regulations.
3. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate interaction, which includes the ability to regulate the entire product price and all of the ongoing activities that affect that price.
Reasoning:
1. The court’s ruling went on to state that government does hold the authority to have regulation intrastate commerce, with the assumption that it would have an adverse effect on