Wickard v. Fillburn expanded the power of the federal government to regulate local economic activities. In 1942, in a unanimous opinion, the Wickard Court created the Aggregation Principle, which was an extension of the Substantial Effects Doctrine, a framework that held if an economic activity has a substantial effect on the interstate economy, Congress is within its enumerated powers to regulate that activity. This all falls under the Commerce Clause, which states: 

“[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…”

Wickard, a local farmer, violated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. He produced more pounds of wheat than was prescribed in the Act’s quota. He was in disapproval of this law, and taken on its face, rightly so- why couldn’t he produce all the wheat he wanted to? Moreover, the excess wheat that he produced on his farm went to his animals, not the market. The court found that excess yields would save him money, and in doing so, upset the local market nonetheless. But this is the local market, not the interstate economy! 

Of course, like any farmer, he wanted a say in his yields. Especially, if his farm could produce it, he wanted a say in the crop’s use. He didn’t want the government intervening in his property, his profits, and especially his promising farming future. It seemed like this was a major congressional overstep. How is it fair that the national government, especially given the Commerce Clause, has a say, or even a compelling interest, in regulating his local farm? How could they argue that his small local farm could ever impact interstate commerce substantially? 

The court had to come up with a reasoning that satisfied those questions. They couldn’t- even at its most expansive reading- match the Constitution with this local regulation. The Commerce Clause, it looked like, was not enough. But, as creative problem solvers, the Supreme Court found a justification. Writing the majority opinion, Robert H. Jackson combined the Necessary and Proper Clause with the Commerce Clause, like many courts had done before, to argue that Wickard’s action, when taken in the aggregate, had a substantial effect on interstate Commerce. Congress was thus enforcing a law that backed up its most fundamental enumerated powers- to regulate commerce among the states. Hypothetically, if Wickard and many other farmers (taken in the aggregate) produced excess wheat, the market would tip. Put simply, if many local markets tip into the hands of “greedy farmers,” a state’s economy would plummet- this issue would cascade into other states posing a threat to the national economy.

Do I believe in this ruling? Yes. Especially with farmers, if preventing the hypothetical above means that Congress is forced to interject in local affairs, protecting general welfare, then it’s a sound ruling. As the future holds, though, the most expansive view of the Commerce Clause might have its pitfalls. Famously, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia have argued that the barriers of federalism, with even the more expansive readings of the Commerce Clause, might dissolve. The dual role of governments- between the state and national- might fade. I think that progress, like these rulings, especially to prevent national economic catastrophe (what was essentially avoided here), has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, as history holds, the state governments are out for themselves, so Congress is left to do the dirty work- dissolving the barriers of federalism in the process. Wickard is a prime example: if the states won’t regulate their local economies efficiently, Congress has to step in.  

If it means progress, then I’m here for it: Americans and legal scholars alike could benefit from a new perspective- the fact that Congress is composed of our elected representatives means that, by that principle, they are acting in our best interest. Too, Congress has supremacy over states- is that because they know best? In conflicts, Congress is given the benefit of the doubt. It’s Congress’s duty to maintain the general welfare of this country, so whenever the United States is in a legal conflict, justices should generally rule in their favor. It’s never easy holding 50 states together, all with different objectives- Congress is charged with this task, and as history holds, states are unfortunately its biggest roadblock.