317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Filburn owns and operates a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, where he maintains a herd of dairy cattle, sells milk, raises poultry, and sells poultry and eggs.1 For many years he has also raised a small acreage of winter wheat sown in the fall and harvested the following July, selling a portion of the crop, feeding part to poultry and livestock on the farm, using some to make flour for home consumption, and keeping the rest for the following seeding.2
In July 1940 the Secretary of Agriculture established for Filburn's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels per acre.3 Filburn received notice of the allotment before planting his 1941 crop and again before harvest.4 He nevertheless sowed 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels from the 11.9 excess acres.5
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended on May 26, 1941, treated the excess as farm marketing excess subject to a penalty of 49 cents per bushel, totaling $117.11. Filburn did not pay the penalty, store the excess wheat under the Secretary's regulations, or deliver it to the Secretary.6 The County Agricultural Conservation Committee therefore refused him a marketing card required to protect buyers from liability for the penalty and its lien.7
On May 19, 1941, the Secretary delivered a radio address to wheat farmers advocating approval of the quotas.8 A referendum of wheat growers was held on May 31, 1941, and 81 percent of those voting favored the marketing quota.9 Filburn filed a complaint in federal district court against the Secretary of Agriculture, members of the County Agricultural Conservation Committee for Montgomery County, Ohio, and a member of the State Agricultural Conservation Committee for Ohio, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the penalty against him and a declaratory judgment that the quota provisions were unconstitutional.10
The district court in Filburn v. Helke, 43 F. Supp. 1017, held that the Secretary's speech invalidated the referendum, that the May 26, 1941 amendment increasing the penalty and subjecting the entire crop to a lien was retroactive and violated the Fifth Amendment, and alternatively that the equities favored Filburn.11 The court permanently enjoined collection of any penalty exceeding 15 cents per bushel.12 The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.13
Whether the Secretary of Agriculture's May 19, 1941 radio address invalidated the May 31, 1941 referendum approving the national wheat marketing quota?14
A speech by a Cabinet officer fails to invalidate a referendum when the record contains no evidence that any voter was misled by the speech or that the speech influenced the referendum outcome.15
No. The Secretary delivered a radio address on May 19, 1941, advocating approval of the quotas.16 The record contains no evidence that any voter was misled by the speech or that it influenced the outcome of the May 31 referendum in which 81 percent approved the quota.17 The district court therefore erred in holding that the speech invalidated the referendum.18
The Secretary's speech did not invalidate the referendum.19
Whether the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended on May 26, 1941, which imposes marketing quotas and penalties on wheat produced for on-farm consumption, is within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause?20
Even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as direct or indirect.21
Yes. Filburn's production of 239 bushels of wheat on excess acreage for on-farm consumption exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce when taken together with that of many others similarly situated.22 Home-consumed wheat constitutes the most variable factor in the disappearance of the wheat crop and competes with wheat in commerce by supplying a need that would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market.23 The Act therefore falls within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.24
The Act as applied to Filburn is within Congress's Commerce Clause power.25
Whether the May 26, 1941 amendment, increasing the marketing penalty from 15 cents to 49 cents per bushel and subjecting the entire crop to a lien, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to Filburn's 1941 crop?26
An Act of Congress is not to be refused application by the courts as arbitrary and capricious, and forbidden by the Due Process Clause, merely because it is deemed in a particular case to work an inequitable result.27
No. The May 26, 1941 amendment increased the penalty and subjected the crop to a lien.28 The penalty was contingent upon threshing after the amendment.29 Filburn could have avoided it by cutting the excess for hay or feeding it unthreshed.30 The amendment provided options to store or deliver the wheat and authorized increased loans.31 The regulation therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause as applied to Filburn's 1941 crop.32
The May 26, 1941 amendment does not violate the Due Process Clause as applied to Filburn.33