The defendant, who operates a farm in Oklahoma, was notified by the County Committee authorized to administer marketing quotas for wheat under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 that his farm wheat acreage allotment for 1956 was 0 acres, that his excess acreage of wheat was 43 acres, and that his farm marketing excess—upon which a civil penalty applies—was 473 bushels. Following defendant’s refusal to pay the penalty of $506.11 thus incurred, the United States brought action to recover this penalty. Defendant alleged, by way of affirmative defenses, that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is unconstitutional and the conditions precedent to valid establishment of a wheat acreage allotment for defendant’s farm had not been complied with. At the trial, defendant’s evidence did not controvert the complaint’s factual allegations, but defendant testified that he had used all of his farm marketing excess wheat as feed for livestock subsequently marketed in the State of Oklahoma. The district court ruled only on the constitutional question raised by the defendant. It held that the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to regulate production of wheat which is used as feed on the farm and that the defendant was therefore entitled to judgment. The case was reversed without opinion by the United States Supreme Court.
Roger A. Langenheim,
Constitutional Law—Intra-State Produced and Consumed Wheat under the Commerce Clause,
38 Neb. L. Rev. 1048
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol38/iss4/8