Case Citator › Wickard v. Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
317 U.S. 111
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
1976–2012
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Limited: later courts declined to extend Wickard v. Filburn's Commerce Clause rule from regulating existing activity to requiring people to buy health insurance. United States v. Lopez continued to treat Wickard's aggregate effects rule as valid for economic activity.
More on how this was screened

All 38 flagged citations have been read; the three confirmed treatments are listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

38 later cases cite Wickard v. Filburn; 38 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wickard v. Filburn?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Wickard's regulation of wheat production to a federal command that inactive people purchase health insurance.

    National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The farmer in Wickard was at least actively engaged in the production of wheat, and the Government could regulate that activity because of its effect on commerce. The Government’s theory here would effectively override that limitation, by establishing that individuals may be regulated under the Commerce Clause whenever enough of them are not doing something the Government would have them do.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The court declined to extend Wickard's rule for regulating existing activity to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that people purchase insurance.

    Florida ex rel. Bondi v. United States Department of Health & Human Services · United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida · filed

    The individual mandate differs from the regulations in Wickard. and Raich, for example, in that the individuals being regulated in those cases were engaged in an activity (regardless of whether it could readily be deemed interstate commerce in itself) and each had the choice to discontinue that activity and avoid penalty.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The court warned that the breadth of federal commerce power exemplified by Wickard could erode federalism.

    United States v. Solomon · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · filed

    Of course, this Court is fully cognizant of the fact that the Supreme Court has allowed the powers of Congress itself to reach into the farthest and darkest nooks and crannies of man’s conception of “interstate commerce.” E. g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). This, too, can lead to serious debasement of the principle of federalism.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wickard v. Filburn and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace