In the list of Supreme Court decisions that got the Constitution wrong, among the worst is its decision in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn. In it, the Court gave the federal government nearly limitless power to regulate business by holding that a farmer who had grown “too much” wheat (according to government decree) could be punished, even though he did not sell any of it. The ruling shredded the concept of interstate commerce. It was as if the Founders had written the Constitution to say, “The government may impose controls of any kind on Americans who produce anything.”

The good news is that Wickard faces a serious challenge.

Writing in American Mind, attorney Trent Laviano informs us that John Ream v. Department of Treasury argues that Wickard reaches far beyond the government’s proper authority. He writes,

The plaintiff is asking for declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn the current federal ban on distilling alcoholic beverages at home for personal and family consumption. Mr. Ream wants to produce rye and bourbon and has no plans to sell or offer it to the public. He believes that this prohibition exceeds the powers of Congress under both Article I and the 10th Amendment.

The case has a long way to go before, possibly, reaching the Supreme Court, but the way the justices have been moving toward the original intent of the Founders, there is reason to think that they’d look favorably on Ream’s challenge.

But we don’t have to wait for the Court, Laviano observes. Congress could legislate to keep federal agencies from meddling in business or agriculture that isn’t truly interstate. I hope someone in Congress takes his idea and runs with it.