Wickard v. Filburn
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82 (1942)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
The Agricultural Adjustment Act (the act) sought to stabilize national wheat prices by controlling the amount of wheat in interstate commerce, preventing surpluses and shortages. The act required Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard (defendant) to establish an annual quota for national wheat production. Roscoe Filburn (plaintiff) had an Ohio dairy farm. He grew small amounts of wheat, using most of it to feed his livestock and make flour for personal use. He sold only a small portion of the wheat. Filburn’s assigned wheat allotment for 1941 was 222 bushels, but he grew and harvested 461 bushels. Under the act, he was penalized $117.11 for his excess wheat production. Filburn sued Wickard, seeking an injunction preventing enforcement of the penalty against him. Filburn argued that the act’s penalty provisions were unconstitutional because Congress’s Commerce Clause authority did not allow it to regulate the production of wheat grown for noncommercial purposes such as on-farm use. Filburn argued that such production and consumption were wholly local in nature, meaning that they did not directly relate to interstate commerce and were not subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. The district court agreed with Filburn, granting the requested injunction. Wickard appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.
