This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Filburn (P) owned a wheat farm. P sold some of his crops, and his family used the rest. The Agriculture Adjustment Act controlled the volume of wheat put into interstate commerce. P exceeded his allotted production of wheat. Wickard (D), the Secretary of Agriculture, assessed a penalty on P. P refused to pay this penalty. He claimed that the Act regulated purely local production and consumption which had at most an indirect effect on interstate commerce. P filed his complaint and sought to enjoin enforcement against himself. P also sought a declaratory judgment that the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Act were unconstitutional because not sustainable under the Commerce Clause or consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case was submitted for decision on the pleadings and upon a stipulation of facts. The judgment permanently enjoined D from collecting a marketing penalty of more than 15 cents a bushel on the farm marketing excess of P's 1941 wheat crop, from subjecting P's entire 1941 crop to a lien for the payment of the penalty, and from collecting a 15-cent penalty except in accordance with the provisions of § 339 of the Act. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.