•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 41 > Issue 4 (1943)

 

Abstract

Under the terms of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized, whenever it appears that the nation's wheat supply will exceed a certain amount, so to proclaim and to put into effect a marketing quota. A referendum must be conducted among the farmers, and if more than one-third oppose, the operation of the quota must be suspended. In July, 1940, the appellee was given notice of an allotment for his 1941 crop. This notice preceded his fall planting of that crop, and another notice a year later preceded its harvesting. The amendment of May 26, 1941, however, changed the penalty and quota provisions and provided for an increase in the loans on wheat. A referendum conducted on May 31, 1941 resulted in approval by approximately four-fifths of those-voting, although it was claimed by the appellee that this was ineffective because of a radio address by the Secretary of Agriculture a week before, failing to mention the amendment's penalty increase. The appellee harvested an excessive crop, failed to pay the new penalty and took none of the steps provided to postpone or avoid it. He was, therefore, refused a marketing card by his county Agricultural Conservation Committee, which card is necessary to protect a buyer from liability to the extent of the penalty. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of this penalty in so far as it affected him and a declaratory judgment that the amended quota provisions were unconstitutional. The district court by its in junction restored the appellee to the position he would have had under the terms of the act prior to the May 26 amendment. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, held, that the judgment of the court below should be reversed. The amendment is within the commerce power and· not violative of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, (U.S. 1942) 63 S. Ct. 82.

Download

Share

COinS