Research Task #1 (20 points total) – Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S 111 (1942)

Research Task #1 (20 points total) – Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S 111 (1942)

Who was the plaintiff and who was the defendant in the case?

Plaintiff – Wickard (the party who initiates a law suit)

Defendant – Filburn (A person whom a law suit has been initiated).

Was this a federal or state case? Explain why.

Federal case – Federal court jurisdiction only hear cases in which the United States is a party, cases involving the violation of the Constitution or federal law, crimes on federal land, and bankruptcy cases. Based on the Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) case, it involved a violation of federal law – the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which intended to regulate the price of wheat in the national market.

Was this a criminal or civil case? Explain why.

The Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) is a criminal case. A criminal case happens when the government files a case in court to punish someone (the defendant) for committing a crime. In this case, Filburn committed a crime against the federal government, and this is why he was sued for overproduction of wheat way above his allotment as a small farmer.

What were the facts of the case?

Filburn was a small farmer from Ohio. He harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat way above his allotment under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. As a result, Filburn was penalized for violation of the Act. In defense, Filburn argued that the extra wheat produced in violation of the law had been used for his own use, and thus had no effect on the interstate commerce as he never took it to the market. According to Filburn, he had not violated the law as the extra wheat was not subjected to regulation under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

What laws or laws were involved in this case?

The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 was meant to regulate the price of wheat at the national level.

What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide? Be sure to explain the court’s decision and the reasoning behind the decision.

The Supreme Court held that the production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 were constitutionally applied to the agricultural production that was consumed purely interstate as the effects upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of the Congress to regulate wheat production under the commerce clause. The Court reasoned that Congress could regulate activity within a single state under the Commerce Clause, even if each individual activity had a trivial effect on interstate commerce as long as the aggregate would result in a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why?

While it may be seen as illegal to control the amount of agricultural production, some regulations are aimed at making sure that the prices are regulated, and this can only be achieved by limiting the number of goods produced. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 aimed at stabilizing the wheat prices on the national market which is a good approach to protecting the farmers. Filburn’s actions could not have had an impact on interstate commerce, but the cumulative actions of thousands of other individuals with the mind like Filburn would certainly make the effect become substantial, making it difficult to stabilize the prices of wheat on the national market. Therefore, despite Filburn claiming to be innocent, his activity was subject to regulation by Congress to prevent the aggregate from having a substantial impact on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial. Therefore, I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Case application in regard to interstate commerce and commerce clause

Interstate commerce refers to the transaction or transportation of products, services or money across state borders. The jurisprudence around Congress’s power under the commerce clause is central to regulating the trade of products across the states. Based on the case study, since the business is based in Arizona, and wants to expand to Nevada, New Mexico, and South California, they will have crossed the state boundaries and now operating within interstates which makes it subject to regulation by Congress. Availing their products in these states will have an impact on the number of spices and seasoning, which will have an effect on the national prices. Based on this, the business will be subject to the commerce clause, giving Congress the power to regulate commerce within the mentioned states. As a result, the business may be negatively affected as they may find themselves violating the Agricultural Adjustment Act due to increased commodities in the market having a cumulative effect that can lead to price destabilization.

Personal jurisdiction implies that the judge has the power to make decisions affecting a person depending on the activity they are engaged in. Personal jurisdiction occurs in the state in which the court sits, and the defendant needs to voluntarily appear in the court. Minimum contacts is a procedure used to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. Based on this, courts from Nevada, New Mexico and South California would potentially have personal jurisdiction over the spices and seasonings business owner if the business is sued as they come from a different state – Arizona.