United States v. Butler

Supreme Court of the United States
297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312, 1936 U.S. LEXIS 946 (1936)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Congress may not use its taxing and spending powers to achieve an unconstitutional end, such as regulating an area of local concern reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Facts:

In response to a national economic emergency and low agricultural prices, Congress enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933.
The Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into voluntary agreements with farmers to reduce their production of certain basic commodities, such as cotton.
In exchange for reducing their acreage, farmers would receive 'rental or benefit payments' from the federal government.
To fund these payments, the Act imposed a 'processing tax' on the first domestic processing of these commodities.
The Hoosac Mills Corporation, a cotton processor, was assessed this processing tax based on its operations.
After the Hoosac Mills Corporation entered receivership, the United States government presented a claim to its receivers, including William M. Butler, for unpaid processing taxes.

Procedural Posture:

The United States presented a claim for unpaid processing taxes to William M. Butler, a receiver for the Hoosac Mills Corporation.
The receivers recommended the claim be disallowed, and the matter was brought before the U.S. District Court.
The District Court found the taxes valid and ordered them paid.
The receivers, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's order, holding the tax unconstitutional.
The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which imposes a tax on agricultural processors to fund payments to farmers who agree to reduce their acreage, unconstitutionally invade the reserved powers of the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts

Yes. The Agricultural Adjustment Act is an unconstitutional statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government and reserved to the states. While Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare is broad (adopting the Hamiltonian view), it is not unlimited and cannot be used as a pretext to regulate matters of local concern. The Act's tax is not a true tax for raising revenue but is an indispensable part of a regulatory scheme to control crop production. The program, though purportedly voluntary, is coercive in nature, as the power to confer or withhold substantial financial benefits effectively forces farmers to comply with federal directives. Congress cannot use its spending power to purchase compliance in an area where it lacks the authority to command it directly.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stone

No. The Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare. Courts are concerned with the power to enact statutes, not their wisdom, and should practice self-restraint. The depressed state of agriculture is a nationwide problem, making expenditure in aid of it a matter of 'general welfare.' The regulation is not accomplished by the tax itself but by the method of expenditure, which is a permissible use of public funds. The payments are not coercive; they are an inducement that farmers are free to accept or reject, as evidenced by the significant number who did not participate. The majority's holding illogically cripples the spending power by prohibiting Congress from attaching conditions to its appropriations to ensure they achieve their intended national purpose.

Analysis:

United States v. Butler represents a significant, though temporary, check on the expansion of federal power during the New Deal era. By invalidating the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Court asserted the Tenth Amendment as a strong barrier against federal encroachment on local activities like agriculture. The decision established the principle that the spending power cannot be used as a disguised tool for regulation in areas reserved to the states. While the Court's specific holding on agricultural regulation was later superseded and its restrictive view of conditional spending was broadened in cases like South Dakota v. Dole, its adoption of the broad Hamiltonian interpretation of the spending power remains a foundational element of constitutional law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Butler (1936)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature