Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Wickard v. Filburn

Supreme Court of the United States · 1942 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce Clauseaggregation principlewheat quotasubstantial effects testCommerce Clausesubstantial effectsaggregation

Facts

Filburn operated a small Ohio farm and typically raised wheat both for sale and for uses on the farm, including feed, seed, and home consumption. For his 1941 crop, he received an acreage allotment of 11.1 acres but planted 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels from the excess acreage. Under the 1941 amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, that excess was treated as farm marketing excess subject to a 49-cent-per-bushel penalty unless stored or delivered to the Secretary. Filburn did not pay the penalty, store the excess, or deliver it, and he was denied a marketing card needed to protect buyers from liability.

Issue

May Congress, under the Commerce Clause, regulate and penalize wheat grown on excess acreage when the wheat is not intended for sale in interstate commerce but may be consumed on the farm? Also, did application of the 1941 amendment violate the Fifth Amendment by being retroactive or otherwise depriving Filburn of due process?

Rule

For purposes of the Commerce Clause, the labels "production," "consumption," and "marketing" are not controlling. Congress may reach local, intrastate activity if, taken in the aggregate, it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce or would obstruct Congress's legitimate regulation of that commerce; and a due process challenge fails where the statutory scheme rationally controls total supply through individual quotas and the complained-of penalty is contingent on post-enactment conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates a nationwide quota program for oats to stabilize interstate prices after years of surplus. Nora Bennett grows extra oats on her farm near Des Moines, Iowa, and uses all of the excess to feed chickens whose eggs she sells locally, arguing the oats never entered any market.

Is the federal quota program constitutional as applied to Nora's excess oats?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress may regulate even local activity that is neither itself interstate commerce nor intended for sale if the activity, taken together with that of many similarly situated actors, exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Home consumption matters because it substitutes for market purchases and can obstruct a national supply-and-price stabilization program. The farmer's own contribution need not be substantial in isolation.