Wickard v. Filburn Flashcards
Facts of the Case
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938
- Allowed Ag. Secretary to set a wheat production quota
- Each wheat grower given an allotment to grow, not sell
- set quota on wheat production → whatever amount is allowed to be grown nation wide → total amount = divided among farmers among the country
- quota on how much wheat you can grow period → not just on how much you can grow and sell
Roscoe Filburn was a dairy farmer near Dayton, OH
- Also grew some wheat to..
1. Feed his cows
2. Home consumption (bread)
3. Get seeds for next year’s wheat crop
4. For sale
Facts pt. 2
-Filburn’s allotment was 222 bushels
-He sold 222 bushels
•He also harvested 239 more bushels (12 acres) for feeding his cows, his family, and getting seeds
•Fined $117 dollars ($2,354 in today’s money)
•Filed lawsuit
Issue
-Whether the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate the price of a good by restricting its production.
Holding
Held (9-0, Jackson writing) YES. Even if an individual’s activity has a trivial effect on interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it because EVERY individual’s combined activity does substantially affect interstate commerce
Filburn’s argument
-Pre-New Deal, Congress could not production/manufacturing
•Considered local, not interstate activity (e.g. Hammer)
-Pre-New Deal, Congress could not regulate activity that had only an indirect effect on commerce
•Although examples of (local) activity that directly affected commerce were few and far between
-Those distinctions aren’t going to work any more
•“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.”
- relying on ideas persuasive to the court before the new deal → a time where Congress could not regulate the production of goods → Takes place locally in one sight + before the goods = ready to go to market + be bought and sold
- congress = power over commercial commerce → which would cover production of goods but at that time = court = too conservative to think like this
- commerce not taking place until furniture manufactured is ready to be sold → Hammer argument
Logic behind the Holding
- unanimous opinion → yes
- even if an individuals activity has a tribual tiny effect on commerce and doesn’t appear to be commercial congress can still regulate
- if trying to solve commercial problem, has the right to regulate that problem successfully
- can say one persons activity will not undermine our ability to scueesssed → but giving exception to one person gives it to all → congress can regulate it
- as long as the problem to begin with = interstate + commercial in nature → difference between what the regulation looks like and why it exists
- might not be targeting something that’s commerce and interstate → but as long as this is the end goal = commerce can regulate it → even if it’s not related to commerce and interstate + commercial
- taking him at his word that nothing is being sold across state lines → goal of the law = to raise wheat prices → this goal is interstate and commercial
How the idea of commerce has changed
- commercial commerce = other things that have direct effect on interstate commerce → congress can regulate it
- direct v. indirect → conservative court made this argument as a reason why congress cannot act → directly effecting = few and far between → difficult to find
- idea of something being too remote for congress = not gonna fly, idololody of courts = changed, paying more attention to expertise of congress and bureocrats
- idea that you can neatly classify whats interstate or local or what has direct or indirect effects → courts will not play that game anymore, it’s not as simple or as neat and tidy as biological classifications → part of this is because the ideological perspective of courts has shifted, and great depression caused justices to realize the economy is not as simple as they thought it was
New Rule for Commerce
-“[E]venif appellee’s [Filburn] 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.”
-End goal of the law is NOT to regulate wheat production
•Wheat production is the strategy
End goal of the law is to raise wheat prices
•That is an interstate (and international) commercial problem
•Can be solved by restricting production AND increasing demand
- does not need to be regarded as commerce → wheat = not commerce → cannot use wheat to buy things on the market → using it for non commercial things → local things
- farm doesn’t cross state lines → his reasons for using the extra wheat = are not commerce
- no economic itnercorse taking place
- filburn is doing something local + non interstate but can be breached by congress if it does indirectly relate to commence
- why would congress want to regulate wheat production
- goal = raise wheat prices
- that is interstate → its commercial
- wheat = national commodity
- the prices = something it can target → regulate the amount of wheat because it is concerned about the price
- motivated by prices being too low → know to fix this, need to target supply and demand
- this is national, not international → supply and demand → regulating the good themselves → not prices or home consumption, but how much of a good gets transported across state lines, given that there is a limit on how much can be transported internationally
- motivation = prices
- end goal = how much wheat = being shipped across state lines
- 1 of the tools they are using = regulating wheat production → now how much is sold but how much is produced
Applying the new rule
-How the law works
•“The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs.
”•Does two things: limits supply and increases demand. If you want extra wheat to feed your cows—have to go buy it
- The way the law works is that its not just about directly reducing the amount showing up in the grain elevators
- if you want the money from ur 222 bushels → your gonna sell it all + then need stuff to feed cows with → cows eat a lot of grains
- huge demand for food → selling entire allotment of wheat → have to go out and buy food for cows
- congress reducing grain left out → make sure it gets processed more quicky →saying if you want more, go out and purchase it, or allow people to see more → congress can do both things
Why this law is being applied
-“The effect of consumption of home-grown wheat on interstate commerce is due to the fact that it constitutes the most variable factor in the disappearance of the wheat crop. Consumption on the farm where grown appears to vary in an amount greater than 20 per cent of average production. The total amount of wheat consumed as food varies but relatively little, and use as seed is relatively constant.”
Why the law is being applied pt. 2
- congress can do both - increase demand and decrease supply
- problem = more that average people = not enough money to go out and buy food
- people could and would consistently purchase bread → wheat prices low, it was cheap, bread keeps fairly well in comparison to meat
- cheap, don’t have to worrying about it spoiling, it is a good source of energy
- the total amount of wheat consumed does not very that much even when times are really bad + the amount of seeds bought → also stays the same → the amount of farm land stays the same (relatively)
- things that change year to year depending on economy → home consumption
- bad economy, eating less beef → less of a need to feed beef with grains
- if its a bad year to be a dairy farmer, your gonna grow less wheat and feed less wheat to cows
- if congress is gonna sucesseed in reducing amount of wheat crossing state lines, have to regulate the things farmers make to avoid buying grain from others
- have to make sure if farmers are going to feed there animals → they are buying that stuff → otherwise things will very (production) and prices remain constantly low
- people could and would consistently purchase bread → wheat prices low, it was cheap, bread keeps fairly well in comparison to meat
- not about filburn → if they let him win this case, they’re letting all farmers in America win
- making exceptions for 1 = exceptions for all = this is how precedents work → everything like filburn can do the same thing if the court sides with him
- saying if 1 person can do this, everyone like him can do this
- his contributions to open market = tribuial = not enough to remove him from the scope of the fed gov → the aggregation principle
- once you add together all the filburn farms in the country
- if their collective behavior = even if its non commercial + local → if every farmer in America is doing nothing interstate and commercial but if they all together = all activity = has effect on commercial → poses obstacle to congress regulating commerce → they can regulate
- if they have a right to act can do it successfully → can mean swiping up things not related to commerce or interstate
- making exceptions for 1 = exceptions for all = this is how precedents work → everything like filburn can do the same thing if the court sides with him
