Question

Let's start by understanding how far this power can run? Why is the Wickard v. Filburn decision so important to the development of federal authority over economic activities?

Answer 1

Answer:-

“It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market. It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. This may arise because being in marketable condition such wheat overhangs the market, and, if induced by rising prices, tends to flow into the market and check price increases. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon. This record leaves us in no doubt that Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown, if wholly outside the scheme of regulation, would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing its purpose to stimulate trade therein at increased prices.” (Wickard v. Filburn. Supreme Court of the United States)

The Supreme Court also affirmed the second Constitutional issue in this case and declared that Congress can regulate trivial local, intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce by using the commerce power. The court held that Congress has the power to regulate any intrastate activity that has an aggregate effect on interstate commerce because it is essential to maintaining a steady and fair market as part of our capitalist society. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the court and stated that:

“The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It 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. . . . The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. . . . It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” (Wickard v. Filburn. Supreme Court of the United States)

The Supreme Court agreed that Filburn’s personal use of wheat interfered with the national wheat market and decided that Congress has the right to regulate this by using the commerce power granted to them.

After the justices had reached a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court increased the federal government’s power to regulate the economy. As the Filburn Foundation states, “The U.S. Supreme Court found the Commerce Clause can apply to local, non-commercial activity that might affect interstate commerce and has the authority to regulate private economic activity.” The Court found it necessary that the government should impose quotas on farmers who grow their wheat for their personal consumption, under the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

This ruling led the federal government to have power in decisions regarding individual activities that could indirectly affect interstate commerce. The Federal Government would not only be within their right to regulate an individual’s crop growing, but could also regulate any other activities that affected interstate commerce in any way. This represented a widening of the scope of the commerce clause.

According to scholars, Wickard v. Filburn has had a significant impact on recent cases. Recent cases such as Gonzales v. Raich, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, have used Wickard v. Filburn as a precedent to support their claims.

In Gonzales v Raich (2005), Judge Thomas expressed concern about the powers of the Federal Congress under the Commerce Clause. In his dissent, he stated:

“Marijuana has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has no demonstrable effect on the national market, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers”

With regards to the other cases – National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services – Wickard was the center of the argument regarding the constitutionality of the ObamaCare Act. The Legal Information Institute mentions that under Wickard Congress had the power to regulate the market for wheat by supporting its price, but the price can be sustained by increasing demand as well as by reducing supply. The summed decisions of some buyers not to obtain wheat have a substantial effect on the price of wheat, just as decisions not to purchase health insurance have on the price of insurance. Therefore, Congress can command those who do not buy wheat to do so, and command those who do not wish to buy health insurance to buy it. The Legal Information Institute highlighted the potential implications of Wickard v. Filburn with brevity:

“Applying the Government’s logic to the familiar case of Wickard v. Filburn shows how far that logic would carry us from the notion of a government of limited powers. “