[Constitution] 7.WICKARD v. FILBURN

[Yunjeong]

WICKARD v. FILBURN  317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942)

Facts

Filburn (plaintiff) owned a small farm and raised a small acreage of winter wheat. After July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which is to stabilize the price of the wheat, the plaintiff had to reduce the total amount of the harvest. The plaintiff refused, since the raise of wheat is for his personal consumption not for marketing, it is not related to interstate commerce as the Act has aimed for. Due to not comporting with the Act, the plaintiff was subject to penalty.

Issue

Whether the interstate regulation passed by the congress to control the amount of wheat production as the power granted by Commerce Clause of the Constitution may extend to farmer’s personal consumption in excess of the farm marketing quotas?

Rules

Article I, § 8, clause 3 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause)

(The Constitution gives Congress the power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119.

The power granted by the Commerce clause extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce.

Application

The plaintiff argues that regulating individual consumption is beyond the reach of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, therefore it is void. The defendant contends that the Act is meant to regulate marketing and any related activity which would affect interstate commerce is within its execution. The court first recognizes that the definition of “market quotas” not only embraces all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises; it includes products to be bartered, exchanged, or disposed of. Because some states have had a surplus of wheat above their own requirements for consumption and some states have been below consumption, these surplus-producing states are expected to supply wheat for export and carry-over. If the plaintiff, and many others similarly situated are permitted to harvest wheat not comporting with the Act, thinking this is strictly intrastate activity, this would eventually negatively be reflected in interstate commerce and hinder the supply chain. Regardless of its impact being direct or indirect, if the activity of growing wheat would exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, the extended execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce is acceptable. (United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co.) Hence, the federal regulation of controlling individual consumption of wheat initiated by the Agricultural Adjustment Act is valid.

Holding

Yes, the congress may regulate individual consumption if this would have an impact on interstate commerce.

Conclusion

Reversed.

Live class feedback

먼저 이 케이스에서의 문제는 개인 소비를 위해 생산한 밀까지 congress가 관여할 수 있는가라는 걸 확인했습니다. 헌법적인 오류가 있던 것은 아니었고, application 과정에서 개인 소비까지 marketing quotas에 포함하고 관리하는 것이 congress가 자신들에게 부여된 권한을 넘는 것인가에 대한 해석이 문제였습니다. 만약 개인의 소비를 위한 밀의 생산을 제한하지 않는다면 그것이 곧 밀 가격의 변동을 가져올 것이고 interstate commerce와 연결이 되기 때문에 법원은 이러한 확장적 규제를 허용했습니다.

Video feedback and notes

농민이 농림부 장관을 상대로 소송을 함. 왜 법을 만든 국회가 아니라 농림부 장관을 소송했을까?⇨ 국회가 입법 행위로 심사 받지 않고 대통령이 통치 행위로 심사 받지 않는 것처럼 (하지만 투표로 심판) 법을 만든 주체에게는 소송을 할 수 없지만 법을 이행한 장관에게는 소송을 할 수 있다.  그렇다면 연방 농림부 장관이 아니라 주의 농림부 장관도 소송을 당할 수 있을까? ⇨ 가능할 것 같다. 다만 여기서 근거가 된 commerce clause는 연방 헌법이기에 다른 법적 근거가 필요할 듯.

Cause of action (이슈) 소송 근거. 법원을 통해 특정 행동을 요구하는 것은 remedy.

Necessary and proper clause는 명시되어 있지 않은 것을 잠재적으로 할 수 있게 도와줌. 하지만 Art 1. Section 8, clause 3에는 [to regulate commerce]라고 명시. 그러니까 necessary and proper clause는 적용할 필요 없음.