Wickard v. Filburn Summary | quimbee.com

An overview of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). For a case brief of Wickard v. Filburn, please visit www.quimbee.com/cases/706875. And for an excellent overview of the history of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, check out our video lectures on constitutional law: www.quimbee.com/topics/subject....
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic-controlled Congress passed many “New Deal” programs designed to improve the poor economic climate in the United States. One such program was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production in an effort to stabilize the national price of wheat. Filburn (plaintiff), a small farmer, was penalized pursuant to the Act for producing wheat in excess of the Act's quotas. Filburn filed suit against Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (defendant), seeking to enjoin enforcement against himself of the penalties. Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his own private consumption and never entered the stream of commerce, his activities could not be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. The district court agreed with Filburn that Congress’s regulations were unconstitutional, and the circuit court affirmed. Wickard appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

[@caiuswickersham]

This is the case that basically made the Commerce Clause a blank check to Congress.

[@hucklesnook1848]

Thank you so much for the video, it was very helpful with my assignment. I hope you're living it up somewhere, because you deserve it!!

[@TooManyChoices1]

This is why Wickard Vs Filburn is such an interesting case. The allotments and subsidies placed onto farmers (who are engaged in a federally regulated commodity production with limits), makes the decision “justified”, yet still insane as congress attempts to use the “aggregation principle” outside of its limited power to regulate “industry” against “individuals” not engaged in commerce through the interstate commerce clause. This is also why the Texas Suppressor freedom case is very interesting, as it will definitely end up referencing Wickard Vs Filburn but Wickard should not be used to validate the clear over reach of federal authority without the same subsidies/allotment numbers of the commodity(suppressors)and in light of the clear Second Amendment challenges. Will be a landmark case, just as Wickard Vs Filburn was. Quite the turning point/shift in American jurisprudence one way or the other. Freedom or Nullification of Rights through capricious use of unilaterally unauthorized authority 🤔!

[@paulschrader1052]

Excellent narrative and very helpful in my Con law class. Thank you !

[@THEPHANTOMHAWKE]

how was law school?

[@galacticknight55544]

I like to call this case "Wicked v. Filburn."

[@jonathanbosco8458]

Thank you for the video God bless and be safe