Truth Seeker
New Member
Like many legal disputes, it started out over something small. In July, 1940, an Ohio wheat farmer named Roscoe Filburn was planning for the fall planting of his wheat crop. But he ran into some of the new government regulations on farming.
During the early years of the Great Depression, the value of farm commodities had plummeted. Farmers were producing plenty of food, but with the general slowdown in economic activity, they could not get enough money for what they produced.
So, when President Franklin Roosevelt came to office, one of the ways his administration tried to prop up the value of farming products was (ironically) to restrict what farmers could produce. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 established "allotments" for various farm commodities, including wheat. If the supply of these products was limited, in theory the price in the overall market would rise.
Filburn was notified by the Agriculture Department that his farm was allotted 11.1 acres to plant. Filburn, however, planted 23 acres, giving him a "marketing excess" of 239 bushels of wheat, which the government then informed him was subject to a penalty of $117.11. Filburn took the Secretary of Agriculture to court, and initially the lower court invalidated the penalty on his excess wheat production.
But the government appealed, and in 1942 Filburn's $117.11 penalty landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The question was whether the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states" allowed Congress to pass a law telling a small farmer like Filburn how much wheat he could produce.
Filburn argued that it could not, pointing out that his family used the excess wheat, for its own food and feed for its animals -- thus making it entirely a "local" activity. But by 1942, President Roosevelt had appointed a majority of the justices on the court, and they were generally deferential Congressional legislation intended to fight the Depression.
The court issued a unanimous decision in favor of the Secretary of Agriculture, written by Justice Robert Jackson -- conveniently, Roosevelt's former Attorney General. Jackson concluded that the issue was not whether the produce was used locally -- it might well all have been used on Filburn's own farm. But if Filburn used the grain that he produced himself, in excess of his "allotment," then he wouldn't be buying wheat elsewhere. Multiply that by thousands of small farmers, and it can have a significant impact on the national price of wheat. Thus, the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate Filburn's wheat even if not a grain of it ever crossed a state line.
So far as we know, Filburn never paid the $117.11.
And then . . . flash forward 60 years or so. A woman named Angel Raich claimed that she had a variety of medical conditions that had not responded to conventional medical treatment, including significant pain. Medical marijuana, according to her physician, was the one treatment that allowed her to function daily. Raich relied on California's Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana -- but only under state law. Raich was afraid of arrest and prosecution by federal authorities, because federal law did not recognize medical marijuana use, even for serious medical conditions.
So she and several others filed a pre-emptive lawsuit, asking the federal courts to declare that Congress didn't have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana she grew on her own property and consumed personally. And once again, her lawsuit reached U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices in the majority were sympathetic to her plight, but decided that the federal government was within its power to regulate marijuana even if it never would cross a state line. And the case that the government relied on most heavily in making this argument? Roscoe Filburn's case against the Agriculture Department.
Of course, one . . . small difference between Filburn's case and Raich's is that the "agricultural commodity" the government was "regulating" in Raich's case was illegal. In fact, it led to an amusing exchange between Justice Anthony Kennedy and Raich's lawyer, when Kennedy asked what the impact of a ruling in favor of Ms. Raich would have on the street price of marijuana. Her attorney responded, "Well, that's hard to say, but I suspect it would go down."
So: Congress is entitled to regulate a commodity -- that under this same federal law is illegal to possess or to sell -- on the basis of that commodity's interstate commercial activity. And one way the Supreme Court determines that that this is "commercial" is by considering the street price of that illegal commodity.
And thus are great matters decided in the marble temple of the Supreme Court.
Frank Zotter is a Ukiah attorney.
News Hawk- Astonr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: ukiahdailyjournal.com
Author: Frank Zotter Jr.
Contact: Contact Us - Ukiah Daily Journal
Website: Judicial Follies - Agricultural adjustments - Ukiah Daily Journal
During the early years of the Great Depression, the value of farm commodities had plummeted. Farmers were producing plenty of food, but with the general slowdown in economic activity, they could not get enough money for what they produced.
So, when President Franklin Roosevelt came to office, one of the ways his administration tried to prop up the value of farming products was (ironically) to restrict what farmers could produce. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 established "allotments" for various farm commodities, including wheat. If the supply of these products was limited, in theory the price in the overall market would rise.
Filburn was notified by the Agriculture Department that his farm was allotted 11.1 acres to plant. Filburn, however, planted 23 acres, giving him a "marketing excess" of 239 bushels of wheat, which the government then informed him was subject to a penalty of $117.11. Filburn took the Secretary of Agriculture to court, and initially the lower court invalidated the penalty on his excess wheat production.
But the government appealed, and in 1942 Filburn's $117.11 penalty landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The question was whether the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states" allowed Congress to pass a law telling a small farmer like Filburn how much wheat he could produce.
Filburn argued that it could not, pointing out that his family used the excess wheat, for its own food and feed for its animals -- thus making it entirely a "local" activity. But by 1942, President Roosevelt had appointed a majority of the justices on the court, and they were generally deferential Congressional legislation intended to fight the Depression.
The court issued a unanimous decision in favor of the Secretary of Agriculture, written by Justice Robert Jackson -- conveniently, Roosevelt's former Attorney General. Jackson concluded that the issue was not whether the produce was used locally -- it might well all have been used on Filburn's own farm. But if Filburn used the grain that he produced himself, in excess of his "allotment," then he wouldn't be buying wheat elsewhere. Multiply that by thousands of small farmers, and it can have a significant impact on the national price of wheat. Thus, the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate Filburn's wheat even if not a grain of it ever crossed a state line.
So far as we know, Filburn never paid the $117.11.
And then . . . flash forward 60 years or so. A woman named Angel Raich claimed that she had a variety of medical conditions that had not responded to conventional medical treatment, including significant pain. Medical marijuana, according to her physician, was the one treatment that allowed her to function daily. Raich relied on California's Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana -- but only under state law. Raich was afraid of arrest and prosecution by federal authorities, because federal law did not recognize medical marijuana use, even for serious medical conditions.
So she and several others filed a pre-emptive lawsuit, asking the federal courts to declare that Congress didn't have the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana she grew on her own property and consumed personally. And once again, her lawsuit reached U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices in the majority were sympathetic to her plight, but decided that the federal government was within its power to regulate marijuana even if it never would cross a state line. And the case that the government relied on most heavily in making this argument? Roscoe Filburn's case against the Agriculture Department.
Of course, one . . . small difference between Filburn's case and Raich's is that the "agricultural commodity" the government was "regulating" in Raich's case was illegal. In fact, it led to an amusing exchange between Justice Anthony Kennedy and Raich's lawyer, when Kennedy asked what the impact of a ruling in favor of Ms. Raich would have on the street price of marijuana. Her attorney responded, "Well, that's hard to say, but I suspect it would go down."
So: Congress is entitled to regulate a commodity -- that under this same federal law is illegal to possess or to sell -- on the basis of that commodity's interstate commercial activity. And one way the Supreme Court determines that that this is "commercial" is by considering the street price of that illegal commodity.
And thus are great matters decided in the marble temple of the Supreme Court.
Frank Zotter is a Ukiah attorney.
News Hawk- Astonr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: ukiahdailyjournal.com
Author: Frank Zotter Jr.
Contact: Contact Us - Ukiah Daily Journal
Website: Judicial Follies - Agricultural adjustments - Ukiah Daily Journal
