Wickard v. Filburn

E2551

Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

Observed surface forms (2)


Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Commerce Clause case
United States Supreme Court case
federal courts case
landmark case
establishedPrinciple even non-commercial, intrastate activity may be regulated if its aggregate effect on interstate commerce is substantial
expanded federal regulatory power under the Commerce Clause
hasActivityAtIssue wheat production for personal consumption
hasAreaOfLaw agricultural law
constitutional law
federalism
hasCategory 1942 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases on federalism
United States Supreme Court cases on the Commerce Clause
hasChiefJustice Justice Harlan F. Stone
surface form: Harlan F. Stone
hasCitation 317 U.S. 111
hasConstitutionalProvision Taxing and Spending Clause
surface form: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution

Commerce Clause
hasContext New Deal era economic regulation
hasCountry United States of America
surface form: United States
hasCourt Supreme Court of the United States
hasDecisionDate 1942-11-09
hasDecisionType unanimous decision
hasDocketNumber 59
hasEra post–Lochner era
hasFarmerName Roscoe C. Filburn
hasFarmerState Ohio
hasFullCaseName Wickard v. Filburn self-linksurface differs
surface form: Roscoe C. Filburn v. Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture
hasGovernmentOfficialParty United States Secretary of Agriculture
hasHolding Congress may regulate purely intrastate activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce
wheat grown for personal consumption may be regulated under the Commerce Clause
hasImpact became a foundational precedent for broad readings of the Commerce Clause
used to uphold later federal economic regulations
hasKeyDoctrine aggregation principle
substantial effects doctrine
hasLegalIssue federal power to regulate agricultural production
scope of the Commerce Clause
hasOpinionAuthor Justice Harlan F. Stone
surface form: Harlan F. Stone
hasPartiesDescription dispute between a small Ohio farmer and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
hasPetitioner Roscoe C. Filburn
hasPrecedentStatus leading authority on Congress’s commerce power
hasRespondent Claude R. Wickard
United States Secretary of Agriculture
surface form: Secretary of Agriculture of the United States
hasResult federal quota on wheat production upheld as constitutional
hasStatuteInvolved Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938
hasTimePeriod World War II era
hasVote 9-0
hasYearDecided 1942
heldThat homegrown wheat for on-farm use could affect national wheat markets in the aggregate
limited scope of states’ exclusive control over local economic activity

Referenced by (14)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

substantial effects doctrine citedInCase Wickard v. Filburn
substantial effects doctrine developedInCase Wickard v. Filburn
Claude R. Wickard familyName Wickard v. Filburn
this entity surface form: Wickard
Wickard v. Filburn hasFullCaseName Wickard v. Filburn self-linksurface differs
this entity surface form: Roscoe C. Filburn v. Claude R. Wickard, Secretary of Agriculture
Commerce Clause interpretedInCase Wickard v. Filburn
Claude R. Wickard legalCase Wickard v. Filburn
Claude R. Wickard notableWork Wickard v. Filburn
Roscoe C. Filburn participantIn Wickard v. Filburn
Gibbons v. Ogden precedentFor Wickard v. Filburn
Gonzales v. Raich priorCaseReliedOn Wickard v. Filburn
Claude R. Wickard subjectOf Wickard v. Filburn