I looked at the actual decision [1] and didn't see Filburn mentioned once. I find that odd. Filburn [2] was a controversial and far-reaching decision that said that the Federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce extended to people growing wheat on their own property for their own use. The rationale was that by growing wheat you weren't participating in the interstate wheat market. That seems like a wild interpretation to me but it's Supreme Court precedent at this point.

So I found this footnote:

> The government does not challenge the district court’s Commerce Clause analysis on appeal. Accordingly, any such argument is forfeited, and we do not address it.

That's interesting. Here's a legal analysis that does bring up the Commerce Clause and Filburn [3]. I really wonder why the government didn't raise this issue.

I knew just from the headline this was going to be a 5th Circuit decision, and it was. This is the same circuit that is perfectly fine to override "state's rights" for other issues.

[1]:https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pd...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[3]: https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/reviving-the-commerce-clause-one...

▲

gbear605 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's possible that the government thought that if they did try to challenge the Commerce Clause analysis, then the Supreme Court could have struck down Filburn. They'd much rather lose narrowly on this specific case than have Filburn reversed entirely.

	▲	mothballed 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		SCOTUS did a pretty hilarious soft "strike down" of Wickard where they basically determined the gun free school zone act (GFSZA) violated interstate commerce clause. So congress just added "in interstate commerce" to the GFSZA and now it does the exact same thing even if there was no interstate commerce involved, and nothing involved ever crossed state lines or actually entered interstate commerce. So SCOTUS basically solved this by saying the law had to say "in interstate commerce" but it is basically just there as a talisman to ward away challenges, a distinction without any difference as it becomes a tautology.

▲

bee_rider 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That seems like a pretty over-reaching interpretation. It makes sense in the context (needing to support federal economic control during WW2). But in some sense the economy is a dynamic system that touches and is touched by almost every decision we make. I made a pot of coffee this morning, should the federal government have the ability to decide whether or not I’m damaging the cafe market by not supporting my local cafe?