FRQ: SCOTUS Comparison Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) as part of the New Deal. The world and national markets for wheat had seen drastic price fluctuations and the purpose of law act was to stabilize wheat prices by limiting the amount of wheat that American farmers could produce, thus controlling supply. The AAA set production limits based on a farmer’s total acreage. Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew wheat not for sale on the market, but to feed to his own livestock. In 1941, Mr. Filburn grew more than the limit set by the AAA and was financially penalized by the federal government. Mr. Filburn filed suit in federal court, claiming that his wheat crop never entered the market. Thus, he argued, his wheat crop could not be regulated under the AAA. The District Court found in favor of Mr. Filburn. The US Department of Agriculture appealed the case and it reached the U. S. Supreme Court.
In the case of Wikard v. Filburn (1941), the Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Court reasoned that his wheat production, even though intended for home consumption, impacted the wheat market because by producing his own he did not purchase wheat that he otherwise would have. The Court acknowledged that Filburn’s action by itself did not have an impact on the price of wheat, but the cumulative effect of such action by thousands of farmers would. Thus, the AAA’s restriction applied to Filburn’s wheat. The Court upheld the AAA because it was convinced that the aggregate effect of American farmers exceeding the production limit would impact the price of wheat nationwide, and therefore Congress had the constitutional authority to regulate it.

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Wikard v. Filburn (1938) and U. S. v. Lopez (1995). Describe the enumerated power granted by the clause.
(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of U. S. v. Lopez led to a different decision than the decision in Wikard v. Filburn. (In other words, compare the court’s reasoning in both cases and explain why the outcome was different.)
(C) In the context of the clause identified in part A, explain how the relationship between the federal and state governments has changed over the course of US history.