Connection lost
Server error
WICKARD v. FILBURN Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A farmer grew wheat for personal consumption in excess of federal limits. The Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate this purely local, non-commercial activity because, in the aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce by impacting national market prices.
Legal Significance: This case established the “aggregation principle,” dramatically expanding Congress’s Commerce Clause power to reach purely intrastate, non-commercial activities if, taken together, they have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. It represents the broadest interpretation of this power.
WICKARD v. FILBURN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Roscoe Filburn, a small farmer in Ohio, was subject to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which aimed to stabilize wheat prices by limiting supply. The Secretary of Agriculture established a national acreage allotment, which resulted in Filburn being assigned an 11.1-acre allotment for his 1941 wheat crop. Filburn sowed 23 acres, producing 239 bushels more than his allotment. He intended to use this excess wheat exclusively for consumption on his own farm—for livestock feed, flour for his family, and future seeding. He did not intend to sell any of it. Pursuant to the Act, Filburn was assessed a penalty for this “farm marketing excess.” He sued, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the penalty. Filburn argued that the application of the Act to wheat grown for personal consumption was unconstitutional because the activity was local in character and did not constitute interstate commerce, thus falling outside the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause extend to regulating the production and consumption of wheat grown entirely for personal use on a local farm?
Yes. The Court held that the application of the Agricultural Adjustment Act’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit an
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause extend to regulating the production and consumption of wheat grown entirely for personal use on a local farm?
Conclusion
*Wickard v. Filburn* represents the apex of judicial deference to congressional authority Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
Congress may regulate purely local, intrastate activities that are not themselves commercial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Jackson, decisively abandoned the categorical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate purely local, non-commercial activity.