Judicial branch · Landmark case
Wickard v. Filburn
317 U.S. 111 (1942) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account.
The Court held that Congress could regulate wheat an Ohio farmer grew entirely for use on his own farm, never sold or intended for interstate commerce. Even a trivial, purely local economic activity falls within Congress’s Commerce Clause power if that activity, aggregated across everyone doing the same thing, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Background
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set wheat production quotas to stabilize wartime-era prices. Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, grew about 12 acres of wheat above his allotted quota, intending to feed it to his own livestock and household, not sell it. The Department of Agriculture fined him anyway. Filburn argued that wheat never sold or shipped anywhere couldn’t possibly be “interstate commerce” that Congress had power to regulate.
The Court disagreed, reasoning that if enough farmers grew their own wheat instead of buying it, the cumulative effect on national wheat demand and price would be real and substantial — even though any single farmer’s harvest, alone, was negligible.
The “aggregate effects” test becomes the broadest reading of federal commerce power in the Court’s history.
For decades, Wickard was cited as the outer edge of what Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause — not overturned since, though United States v. Lopez (1995) and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) later found real limits Wickard’s logic doesn’t reach.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Jackson, J. (opinion of the Court) |
|---|---|
| Join | Stone, C.J., Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy |
| Not participating | Byrnes, J. (resigned before decision) |
| Dissent | None |
That appellee’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.
Justice Jackson · Wickard v. Filburn
How it fits in government
Legislative branch
This ruling defines just how far Congress’s Article I commerce power reaches — a boundary question that shapes what federal legislation can regulate at all.
Judicial branch
The “aggregate economic effects” test this case established remained the controlling Commerce Clause framework for over 50 years.
Where to verify
Start with the official opinion text, syllabus, and docket materials. Secondary explainers are useful only after the primary record is open.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Oyez
Case abstract, oral argument audio, and justice votes.
Opinion text (LII)
Readable public text of Wickard v. Filburn.
GovInfo · U.S. Courts
Official publications and related federal court materials.
Related research paths
Gibbons v. Ogden
The 1824 case that first read “commerce” broadly — the starting point this ruling built on.
NFIB v. Sebelius
Where the Court later found a real limit the Commerce Clause power doesn’t reach.
Commerce Clause
Article I, Section 8’s grant of power to regulate interstate commerce.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings that define structural powers across the three branches.