Wickard v Filburn case brief

here you will see the Wickard v Filburn case brief.

Wickard v Filburn case is a landmark case in US constitutional law.

Wickard v Filburn case expanded the power of congress in regulating entities by providing that the power of Congress over interstate commerce is absolute and unrestricted, and it may be applied to the fullest extent possible.

It recognizes no limitations other than those set forth in the Constitution.

Here I will share with you the Wickard v Filburn case brief to help you understand everything you need to know about the Wickard v Filburn case in a simple and accurate way.

Interested in learning how to write your own case brief? learn here

Wickard v Filburn case brief

Wickard v. Filburn – 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82 (1942)

Decided on Decided November 9, 1942

by Justice Robert H.  Jackson, Supreme Court of the United States

Parties

Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture et al, Appellants and Roscoe C. Filburn Appellee 

Procedure

Appellee filed his complaint against the Appellants in The District Court Of The United States For The Southern District Of Ohio.

The district court decided in favor of Filburn.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Facts

Roscoe Filburn was producing wheat on his own farm to feed his animals.

Through The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the US government set production limitations depending on the amount of land owned by a farmer to keep wheat prices and supplies stable.

Filburn grew more than was allowed, and as a result, he was fined. He responded that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be controlled as commerce, much less “interstate” commerce because it was not sold thus it was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

NOTE

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which provides that the United States Congress shall have power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Filburn filed his complaint against the Appellants in The District Court Of The United States For The Southern District Of Ohio challenging the fine.

The district court decided in favor of Filburn. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Issue

does the Appellee production regulated under the commerce clause?

Rule

In reaching its decision the court extended the Commerce Clause and apply the rule that Congress has the authority to regulate all activities of entities that are not involved in interstate commerce but have an effect in interstate commerce.

Reasoning

When applying the law to the facts, the court reasoned that Despite the fact that wheat is solely for personal consumption, it competes for wheat in commerce by reducing the demand for wheat by the grower.

Because the person who grows the wheat does not have to buy it, the demand for wheat decreases.

When taken as a whole (assuming everyone overgrew wheat “for personal consumption”), the drop in demand would have a considerable impact on interstate trade.

The court concedes that a single farmer’s impact on interstate commerce may be minor, but when evaluated in the aggregate of all “similarly situated” farms, the value of wheat in commerce may be greatly affected.

Holding

Yes, Appellee production is regulated under the commerce clause.

Judgment

The District Court of The United States For The Southern District of Ohio reversed.

other case briefs to read

• Marbury versus Madison case brief
• Hamer v Sidway case brief
• Pennoyer v Neff case brief
• Pierson v Post case brief
• Hawkins v Mcgee case brief
• Tinker v des Moines case brief
• Duncan v Louisiana case brief
• Garrett v Dailey case brief
• Lucy v Zehmer case brief
• Brown v Board of education case brief
• Griswold v Connecticut case brief
• Katz v United States case brief
• Riley v California case brief | United States v. Wurie
• Leonard v Pepsico case brief
• Katz v United States case brief
• District of Columbia v. Heller case brief
• Gonzales v Raich case brief