Case
Wickard v. Filburn
Answer: Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The Court held that Congress may regulate a farmer’s wheat grown for personal use under the Commerce Clause because—considered in the aggregate across similarly situated producers—it substantially affects interstate commerce. The Court also dismissed Fifth Amendment objections tied to the program’s penalties and retroactivity within the price‑stabilization scheme.
Rule to remember
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), establishes the aggregation principle: Congress may regulate intrastate, even nonmarket, agricultural production when its cumulative effect on interstate commerce is substantial.
Key elements and checks
- Economic class of activity: production and consumption of a commodity within a comprehensive federal scheme.
- Aggregation rule: an individual’s trivial effect is regulable if many similar acts together have a substantial market impact.
- Rational‑basis deference to Congress’s judgment about market effects.
- Formal labels—production, consumption, marketing—are immaterial to the scope of federal commerce power.
- Homegrown output can substitute for market purchases and thus affect prices and supply.
- Later limits: Lopez/Morrison constrain non‑economic activities; Raich reaffirms aggregation for economic classes within comprehensive regulation.
In the source’s words
“Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.”
WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
“It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.”
WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Federal constitutional doctrine; no meaningful state variation. This case concerns Congress’s affirmative commerce power, not the dormant Commerce Clause (which is also federal but contextually distinct).