![]() ![]() Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution's Commerce Clause, in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which permits the U.S. But even if appellee's 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 and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Īn Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. ![]() 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. (1941) ( Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938) Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause.Ĭhief Justice Harlan F. Ohio 1942) probable jurisdiction noted, 62 S. Injunction granted to plaintiff, Filburn v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |