Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

FACTS: The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 included allowances for marketing quotas. A Farmer in Montgomery County, Ohio had a longstanding practice of growing a small crop of wheat which he mostly used on his own for various purposes, and some of which he sold locally. He objected to the marketing quotas being applied to him on the grounds that the crop did not leave the state and was not a part of interstate commerce.

ISSUES: 1) Are the market quotas provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 valid uses of Congressional power under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution.

DECISION: Yes

REASONING: (Jackson) The decision in United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941) established that under the Commerce Clause Congress could, as a means of regulating interstate commerce, regulate activities that are in and of themselves intrastate, if those activities were a part of a larger, interstate, market. The actions of the farmer in this case may not be regarded as interstate commerce, and in and of themselves they may not have a substantial impact on the market, but it can still be reached by Congress because the aggregate total of all farmers conducting similar activities would have a substantial effect on the trade and price of the goods in question. It was urged in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) that any restraints on constitutionally provided federal powers must stem from legislative, not judicial actions. Due to the fact that the activities in question fall under the scope of federal power as established by the Commerce Clause, it is not the place of the Court to make any further judgments with respect to the Act.