Facebook pixel The New Deal: UNITED STATES v. BUTLER et al. | Pepperdine School of Public Policy Skip to main content
Pepperdine | School of Public Policy

The New Deal: UNITED STATES v. BUTLER et al.

Supreme Court Cases

297 U.S. 1

(Opinion of the Court)

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we must determine whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933, conflict with the Federal Constitution.

Title 1 of the statute is captioned "Agricultural Adjustment.”  Section 1 recites that an economic emergency has arisen, due to disparity between the prices of agricultural and other commodities, with consequent destruction of farmers' purchasing power and breakdown in orderly exchange, which, in turn, have affected transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest and burdened and obstructed the normal currents of commerce, calling for the enactment of legislation.

Section 2 declares it to be the policy of Congress:  "To establish and maintain such balance between the production and consumption of agricultural commodities, and such marketing conditions therefor, as will reestablish prices to farmers at a level that will give agricultural commodities a purchasing power with respect to articles that farmers buy, equivalent to the purchasing power of agricultural commodities in the base period.”

The base period, in the case of cotton, and all other commodities except tobacco, is designated as that between August, 1909, and July, 1914.

The further policies announced are an approach to the desired equality by gradual correction of present inequalities "at as rapid a rate as is deemed feasible in view of the current consumptive demand in domestic and foreign markets,” and the protection of consumers” interest by readjusting farm production at such level as will not increase the percentage of the consumers” retail expenditures for agricultural commodities or products derived therefrom, which is returned to the farmer, above the percentage returned to him in the base period.

Section 8 provides, amongst other things, that, "In order to effectuate the declared policy,” the Secretary of Agriculture shall have power

"(1) To provide for reduction in the acreage or reduction in the production for market, or both, of any basic agricultural commodity, through agreements with producers or by other voluntary methods, and to provide for rental or benefit payments in connection therewith or upon that part of the production of any basic agricultural commodity required for domestic consumption, in such amounts as the Secretary deems fair and reasonable, to be paid out of any moneys available for such payments.” 

"(2) To enter into marketing agreements with processors, associations of producers, and others engaged in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce of any agricultural commodity or product thereof, after due notice and opportunity for hearing to interested parties.”...

"(3) To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers, and others to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof, or any competing commodity or product thereof.”

It will be observed that the Secretary is not required, but is permitted, if, in his uncontrolled judgment, the policy of the act will so be promoted, to make agreements with individual farmers for a reduction of acreage or production upon such terms as he may think fair and reasonable.

Section 9(a) enacts:

"To obtain revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of the national economic emergency, there shall be levied processing taxes as hereinafter provided.  When the Secretary of Agriculture determines that rental or benefit payments are to be made with respect to any basic agricultural commodity, he shall proclaim such determination, and a processing tax shall be in effect with respect to such commodity from the beginning of the marketing year therefor next following the date of such proclamation.  The processing tax shall be levied, assessed, and collected upon the first domestic processing of the commodity, whether of domestic production or imported, and shall be paid by the processor.”

The Secretary may from time to time, if he finds it necessary for the effectuation of the policy of the act, readjust the amount of the exaction to meet the requirements of subsection (b). The tax is to terminate at the end of any marketing year if the rental or benefit payments are discontinued by the Secretary with the expiration of that year.

Section 9(b) fixes the tax "at such rate as equals the difference between the current average farm price for the commodity and the fair exchange value,” with power in the Secretary, after investigation, notice, and hearing, to readjust the tax so as to prevent the accumulation of surplus stocks and depression of farm prices.

Section 9(c) directs that the fair exchange value of a commodity shall be such a price as will give that commodity the same purchasing power with respect to articles farmers buy as it had during the base period, and that the fair exchange value and the current average farm price of a commodity shall be ascertained by the Secretary from available statistics in his department.

Section 12(a) appropriates $100,000,000 "to be available to the Secretary of Agriculture for administrative expenses under this title and for rental and benefit payments;” and Section 12(b), appropriates the proceeds derived from all taxes imposed under the act "to be available to the Secretary of Agriculture for expansion of markets and removal of surplus agricultural products.  Administrative expenses, rental and benefit payments, and refunds on taxes.” 

Section 15(d) permits the Secretary, upon certain conditions, to impose compensating taxes on commodities in competition with those subject to the processing tax.

By section 16, a floor tax is imposed upon the sale or other disposition of any article processed wholly or in chief value from any commodity with respect to which a processing tax is to be levied in amount equivalent to that of the processing tax which would be payable with respect to the commodity from which the article is processed if the processing had occurred on the date when the processing tax becomes effective.  On July 14, 1933, the Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval of the President, proclaimed that he had determined rental and benefit payments should be made with respect to cotton; that the marketing year for that commodity was to begin August 1, 1933; and calculated and fixed the rates of processing and floor taxes on cotton in accordance with the terms of the act.

The United States presented a claim to the respondents as receivers of the Hoosac Mills Corporation for processing and floor taxes on cotton levied under sections 9 and 16 of the act.  The receivers recommended that the claim be disallowed.  The District Court found the taxes valid and ordered them paid.  Upon appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the order.  The judgment under review was entered prior to the adoption of the amending act of August 24, 1935, and we are therefore concerned only with the original act.

First.  At the outset the United States contends that the respondents have no standing to question the validity of the tax.  The position is that the act is merely a revenue measure levying an excise upon the activity of processing cotton-a proper subject for the imposition of such a tax-the proceeds of which go into the federal Treasury and thus become available for appropriation for any purpose.  It is said that what the respondents are endeavoring to do is to challenge the intended use of the money pursuant to Congressional appropriation when, by concession, that money will have become the property of the government and the taxpayer will no longer have any interest in it.  Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, is claimed to foreclose litigation by the respondents or other taxpayers, as such, looking to restraint of the expenditure of government funds.  That case might be an authority in the petitioners' favor if we were here concerned merely with a suit by a taxpayer to restrain the expenditure of the public moneys.  It was there held that a taxpayer of the United States may not question expenditures from its treasury on the ground that the alleged unlawful diversion will deplete the public funds and thus increase the burden of future taxation.  Obviously the asserted interest of a taxpayer in the federal government's funds and the supposed increase of the future burden of taxation is minute and indeterminable.  But here the respondents, who are called upon to pay moneys as taxes, resist the exaction as a step in an unauthorized plan.  This circumstance clearly distinguishes the case.  The government in substance and effect asks us to separate the Agricultural Adjustment Act into two statutes, the one levying an excise on processors of certain commodities; the other appropriating the public moneys independently of the first.  Passing the novel suggestion that two statutes enacted as parts of a single scheme should be tested as if they were distinct and unrelated, we think the legislation now before us is not susceptible of such separation and treatment. 

The tax can only be sustained by ignoring the avowed purpose and operation of the act, and holding it a measure merely laying an excise upon processors to raise revenue for the support of government.  Beyond cavil the sole object of the legislation is to restore the purchasing power of agricultural products to a parity with that prevailing in an earlier day; to take money from the processor and bestow it upon farmers who will reduce their acreage for the accomplishment of the proposed end, and, meanwhile, to aid these farmers during the period required to bring the prices of their crops to the desired level.

The tax plays an indispensable part in the plan of regulation.  As stated by the Agricultural Adjustment Administrator, it is "the heart of the law,” a means of "accomplishing one or both of two things intended to help farmers attain parity prices and purchasing power.”  A tax automatically goes into effect for a commodity when the Secretary of Agriculture determines that rental or benefit payments are to be made for reduction of production of that commodity.  The tax is to cease when rental or benefit payments cease.  The rate is fixed with the purpose of bringing about crop reduction and price raising.  It is to equal the difference between the "current average farm price” and "fair exchange value.”  It may be altered to such amount as will prevent accumulation of surplus stocks.  If the Secretary finds the policy of the act will not be promoted by the levy of the tax for a given commodity, he may exempt it.  The whole revenue from the levy is appropriated in aid of crop control; none of it is made available for general governmental use.  The entire agricultural adjustment program embodied in title 1 of the act is to become inoperative when, in the judgment of the President, the national economic emergency ends; and as to any commodity he may terminate the provisions of the law, if he finds them no longer requisite to carrying out the declared policy with respect to such commodity.

The statute not only avows an aim foreign to the procurement of revenue for the support of government, but by its operation shows the exaction laid upon processors to be the necessary means for the intended control of agricultural production.  These aspects the tax, co-called, closely resembles that laid by the Act of August 3, 1882, entitled "An Act to Regulate Immigration,” which came before this court in the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580.  The statute directed that there should be levied, collected, and paid a duty of 50 cents for each alien passenger who should come by vessel from a foreign port to one in the United States.  Payment was to be made to the collector of the port by the master, owner, consignee, or agent of the ship; the money was to be paid into the Treasury, was to be called the immigrant fund, and to be used by the Secretary of the Treasury to defray the expense of regulating immigration, for the care of immigrants, and relieving those in distress, and for the expenses of effectuating the act.

Various objections to the act were presented.  In answering them the court said:

       "But the true answer to all these objections is that the power exercised in this instance is not the taxing power.  The burden imposed on the ship-owner by this statute is the mere incident of the regulation of commerce-of that branch of foreign commerce which is involved in immigration.”

"It is true, not much is said about protecting the ship-owner.  But he is the man who reaps the profit from the transaction.  The sum demanded of him is not, therefore, strictly speaking, a tax or duty within the meaning of the constitution.  The money thus raised, though paid into the treasury, is appropriated in advance to the uses of the statute, and does not go to the general support of the government.”

While there the exaction was sustained as an appropriate element in a plan within the power of Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” no question was made of the standing of the ship owner to raise the question of the validity of the scheme, and consequently of the exaction which was an incident of it.

It is inaccurate and misleading to speak of the exaction from processors prescribed by the challenged act as a tax, or to say that as a tax it is subject to no infirmity.  A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government.  The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.  We may concede that the latter sort of imposition is constitutional when imposed to effectuate regulation of a matter in which both groups are interested and in respect of which there is a power of legislative regulation.  But manifestly no justification for it can be found unless as an integral part of such regulation.  The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raising revenue, and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentality for bringing about a desired end.  To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand

We conclude that the act is one regulating agricultural production; that the tax is a mere incident of such regulation; and that the respondents have standing to challenge the legality of the exaction.

It does not follow that, as the act is not an exertion of the taxing power and the exaction not a true tax, the statute is void or the exaction uncollectible.  For, to paraphrase what was said in the Head Money Cases, if this is an expedient regulation by Congress, of a subject within one of its granted powers, "and the end to be attained powers, within that power, the act is not void because, within a loose and more extended sense than was used in the constitution,” the exaction is called a tax. 

Second.  The government asserts that even if the respondents may question the propriety of the appropriation embodied in their statute, their attack must fail because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, authorizes the contemplated expenditure of the funds raised by the tax.  This contention presents the great and the controlling question in the case.  We approach its decision with a sense of our grave responsibility to render judgment in accordance with the principles established for the governance of all three branches of the government.

There should be no misunderstanding as to the function of this court in such a case.  It is sometimes said that the court assumes a power to overrule or control the action of the people's representatives.  This is a misconception.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and established by the people.  All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down.  When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the government has only one duty; to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former.  All the court does, or can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the question.  The only power it has, if such it may be called, is the power of judgment.  This court neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy.  Its delicate and difficult office is to ascertain and declare whether the legislation is in accordance with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution; and, having done that, its duty ends.  The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers in fact have been given by the people.  It hardly seems necessary to reiterate that ours is a dual form of government; that in every state there are two governments; the state and the United States.  Each state has all governmental powers save such as the people, by their Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the states, or reserved to themselves.  The federal union is a government of delegated powers.  It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted.  In this respect we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, vests sundry powers in the Congress.  But two of its clauses have any bearing upon the validity of the statute under review. 

The third clause endows the Congress with power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several States.”  Despite a reference in its first section to a burden upon, and an obstruction of the normal currents of, commerce, the act under review does not purport to regulate transactions in interstate or foreign commerce.  Its stated purpose is the control of agricultural production, a purely local activity, in an effort to raise the prices paid the farmer.  Indeed, the government does not attempt to uphold the validity of the act on the basis of the commerce clause, which, for the purpose of the present case, may be put aside as irrelevant.

The clause thought to authorize the legislation, the first, confers upon the Congress power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States....”  It is not contended that this provision grants power to regulate agricultural production upon the theory that such legislation would promote the general welfare.  The government concedes that the phrase "to provide for the general welfare” qualifies the power "to lay and collect taxes.”  The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted. Mr. Justice Story points out that, if it were adopted, "it is obvious that under color of the generality of the words, to "provide for the common defense and general welfare”, the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers.”  The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.

Nevertheless, the government asserts that warrant is found in this clause for the adoption of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the "general welfare”; that the phrase should be liberally construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare; that decision as to what will promote such welfare rests with Congress alone, and the courts may not review its determination; and, finally, that the appropriation under attack was in fact for the general welfare of the United States.

The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation.  Article 1, Section 9, Cl. 7.  They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected, unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax.  The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States.”  These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used.  The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money.  How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument? 

Since the foundation of the nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase.  Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress.  In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers.  Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.  Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight.  This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction.  Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position.  We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice.  Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one.  While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress.  It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. 

As Story says: "The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.”

Again he says: "A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power.  It is limited to those objects.  It cannot constitutionally transcend them.”

That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit.  Hamilton, in his well known "Report on Manufactures,” states that the purpose must be "general, and not local.”  Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton's doctrine, wrote:  "Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure?  They certainly have not.”  Story says that if the tax were not proposed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles.  And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

As elsewhere throughout the Constitution the section in question lays down principles, which control the use of the power, and does not attempt meticulous or detailed directions.  Every presumption is to be indulged in favor of faithful compliance by Congress with the mandates of the fundamental law.  Courts are reluctant to adjudge any statute in contravention of them.  But, under our frame of government, no other place is provided where the citizen may be heard to urge that the law fails to conform to the limits set upon the use of a granted power.  When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.  How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark.  But, despite the breadth of the legislative discretion, our duty to hear and to render judgment remains.  If the statute plainly violates the stated principle of the Constitution we must so declare.  We are not now required to ascertain the scope of the phrase "general welfare of the United States” or to determine whether an appropriation in aid of agriculture falls within it.  Wholly apart from that question, another principle embedded in our Constitution prohibits the enforcement of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  The act invades the reserved rights of the states.  It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government.  The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan.  They are but means to an unconstitutional end. 

From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people.  To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted.  The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited.  None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.

It is an established principle that the attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted.

"Should congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say, that such an act was not the law of the land.”  (McCulloch v. Maryland.)

"Congress cannot, under the pretext of executing delegated power, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the federal government.  And we accept as established doctrine that any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power, but solely to the achievement of something plainly within power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced.”  (Linder v. United States.)

These principles are as applicable to the power to lay taxes as to any other federal power. Said the court, in McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, Wheat.  "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

The power of taxation, which is expressly granted, may, of course, be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted.  But resort to the taxing power to effectuate an end which is not legitimate, not within the scope of the Constitution, is obviously inadmissible.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the states.”  (Gibbons v. Ogden.)

"There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself.  It would undoubtedly be an abuse of the (taxing) power if so exercised as to impair the separate existence and independent self-government of the States, or if exercised for ends inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution.”  (Veazie Bank v. Fenno.)

In the Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20, and in Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, this court had before it statutes which purported to be taxing measures.  But their purpose was found to be to regulate the conduct of manufacturing and trading, not in interstate commerce, but in the states -- matters not within any power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution -- and the levy of the tax a means to force compliance.  The court held this was not a constitutional use, but an unconstitutional abuse of the power to tax.  In Linder v. United States, supra, we held that the power to tax could not justify the regulation of the practice of a profession, under the pretext of raising revenue.  In United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, we declared that Congress could not, in the guise of a tax, impose sanctions for violation of state law respecting the local sale of liquor.  These decisions demonstrate that Congress could not, under the pretext of raising revenue, lay a tax on processors who refuse to pay a certain price for cotton and exempt those who agree so to do, with the purpose of benefiting producers.

Third.  If the taxing power may not be used as the instrument to enforce a regulation of matters of state concern with respect to which the Congress has no authority to interfere, may it, as in the present case, be employed to raise the money necessary to purchase a compliance which the Congress is powerless to command?  The government asserts that whatever might be said against the validity of the plan, if compulsory, it is constitutionally sound because the end is accomplished by voluntary co-operation.  There are two sufficient answers to the contention.  The regulation is not in fact voluntary.  The farmer, of course, may refuse to comply, but the price of such refusal is the loss of benefits.  The amount offered is intended to be sufficient to exert pressure on him to agree to the proposed regulation.  The power to confer or withhold unlimited benefits is the power to coerce or destroy.  If the cotton grower elects not to accept the benefits, he will receive less for his crops; those who receive payments will be able to undersell him.  The result may well to financial ruin.  The coercive purpose and intent of the statute is not obscured by the fact that it has not been perfectly successful.  It is pointed out that, because there still remained a minority whom the rental and benefit payments were insufficient to induce to surrender their independence of action, the Congress has gone further, and, in the Bankhead Cotton Act, used the taxing power in a more directly minatory fashion to compel submission.  This progression only serves more fully to expose the coercive purpose of the so-called tax imposed by the present act.  It is clear that the Department of Agriculture has properly described the plan as one to keep a non-cooperating minority in line.  This is coercion by economic pressure.  The asserted power of choice is illusory.

In Frost & Frost Trucking Company v. R.R. Commission, 271 U.S. 583, a state act was considered which provided for supervision and regulation of transportation for hire by automobile on the public highways.  Certificates of convenience and necessity were to be obtained by persons desiring to use the highways for this purpose.  The regulatory commission required that a private contract carrier should secure such a certificate as a condition of its operation.  The effect of the commission's action was to transmute the private carrier into a public carrier.  In other words, the privilege of using the highways as a private carrier for compensation was conditioned upon his dedicating his property to the quasi public use of public transportation.  While holding that the private carrier was not obliged to submit himself to the condition, the commission denied him the privilege of using the highways if he did not do so.  The argument was, as here, that the carrier had a free choice.  This court said, in holding the act as construed unconstitutional:  "If so, constitutional guaranties, so carefully safeguarded against direct assault, are open to destruction by the indirect, but no less effective, process of requiring a surrender, which, though in form voluntary, in fact lacks none of the elements of compulsion.  Having regard to form alone, the act here is an offer to the private carrier of a privilege, which the state may grant or deny, upon a condition which the carrier is free to accept or reject.  In reality, the carrier is given no choice, except a choice between the rock and the whirlpool-an option to forego a privilege which may be vital to his livelihood or submit to a requirement which may constitute an intolerable burden.”

But if the plan were one for purely voluntary co-operation it would stand no better so far as federal power is concerned.  At best, it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states.

It is said that Congress has the undoubted right to appropriate money to executive officers for expenditure under contracts between the government and individuals; that much of the total expenditures is so made.  But appropriations and expenditures under contracts for proper governmental purposes cannot justify contracts which are not within federal power.  And contracts for the reduction of acreage and the control of production are outside the range of that power.  An appropriation to be expended by the United States under contracts calling for violation of a state law clearly would offend the Constitution. Is a statute less objectionable which authorizes expenditure of federal moneys to induce action in a field in which the United States has no power to intermeddle?  The Congress cannot invade state jurisdiction to compel individual action; no more can it purchase such action.

We are referred to numerous types of federal appropriation which have been made in the past, and it is asserted no question has been raised as to their validity.  We need not stop to examine or consider them.  As was said in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, supra (262 U.S. 447):  "As an examination of the acts of Congress will disclose, a large number of statutes appropriating or involving the expenditure of moneys for nonfederal purposes have been enacted and carried into effect.”

As the opinion points out, such expenditures have not been challenged because no remedy was open for testing their constitutionality in the courts.

We are not here concerned with a conditional appropriation of money, nor with a provision that if certain conditions are not complied with the appropriation shall no longer be available.  By the Agricultural Adjustment Act the amount of the tax is appropriated to be expended only in payment under contracts whereby the parties bind themselves to regulation by the federal government.  There is an obvious difference between a statute stating the conditions upon which moneys shall be expended and one effective only upon assumption of a contractual obligation to submit to a regulation which otherwise could not be enforced.  Many examples pointing the distinction might be cited.  We are referred to appropriations in aid of education, and it is said that no one has doubted the power of Congress to stipulate the sort of education for which money shall be expended.  But an appropriation to an educational institution which by its terms is to become available only if the beneficiary enters into a contract to teach doctrines subversive of the Constitution is clearly bad.  An affirmance of the authority of Congress so to condition the expenditure of an appropriation would tend to nullify all constitutional limitations upon legislative power.

But it is said that there is a wide difference in another respect, between compulsory regulation of the local affairs of a state's citizens and the mere making of a contract relating to their conduct; that, if any state objects, it may declare the contract void and thus prevent those under the state's jurisdiction from complying with its terms.  The argument is plainly fallacious.  The United States can make the contract only if the federal power to tax and to appropriate reaches the subject-matter of the contract.  If this does reach the subject-matter, its exertion cannot be displaced by state action.  To say otherwise is to deny the supremacy of the laws of the United States; to make them subordinate to those of a state.  This would reverse the cardinal principle embodied in the Constitution and substitute one which declares that Congress may only effectively legislate as to matters within federal competence when the states do not dissent.

Congress has no power to enforce its commands on the farmer to the ends sought by the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  It must follow that it may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance.  The Constitution and the entire plan of our government negative any such use of the power to tax and to spend as the act undertakes to authorize.  It does not help to declare that local conditions throughout the nation have created a situation of national concern; for this is but to say that whenever there is a widespread similarity of local conditions, Congress may ignore constitutional limitations upon its own powers and usurp those reserved to the states.  If, in lieu of compulsory regulation of subjects within the states” reserved jurisdiction, which is prohibited, the Congress could invoke the taxing and spending power as a means to accomplish the same end, Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article 1 would become the instrument for total subversion of the governmental powers reserved to the individual states.

If the act before us is a proper exercise of the federal taxing power, evidently the regulation of all industry throughout the United States may be accomplished by similar exercises of the same power.  It would be possible to exact money from one branch of an industry and pay it to another branch in every field of activity which lies within the province of the states.  The mere threat of such a procedure might well induce the surrender of rights and the compliance with federal regulation as the price of continuance in business.  A few instances will illustrate the thought.

Let us suppose Congress should determine that the farmer, the miner, or some other producer of raw materials is receiving too much for his products, with consequent depression of the processing industry and idleness of its employees.  Though, by confession, there is no power vested in Congress to compel by statute a lowering of the prices of the raw material, the same result might be accomplished, if the questioned act be valid, by taxing the producer upon his output and appropriating the proceeds to the processors, either with or without conditions imposed as the consideration for payment of the subsidy.

We have held in A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, that Congress has no power to regulate wages and hours of labor in a local business.  If the petitioner is right, this very end may be accomplished by appropriating money to be paid to employers from the federal treasury under contracts whereby they agree to comply with certain standards fixed by federal law or by contract.

Should Congress ascertain that sugar refiners are not receiving a fair profit, and that this is detrimental to the entire industry, and in turn has its repercussions in trade and commerce generally, it might, in analogy to the present law, impose an excise of 2 cents a pound on every sale of the commodity and pass the funds collected to such refiners, and such only, as will agree to maintain a certain price.

Assume that too many shoes are being manufactured throughout the nation; that the market is saturated, the price depressed, the factories running half time, the employees suffering.  Upon the principle of the statute in question, Congress might authorize the Secretary of Commerce to enter into contracts with shoe manufacturers providing that each shall reduce his output, and that the United States will pay him a fixed sum proportioned to such reduction, the money to make the payments to be raised by a tax on all retail shoe dealers on their customers.

Suppose that there are too many garment workers in the large cities; that this results in dislocation of the economic balance.  Upon the principle contended for, an excise might be laid on the manufacture of all garments manufactured and the proceeds paid to those manufacturers who agree to remove their plants to cities having not more than a hundred thousand population.  Thus, through the asserted power of taxation, the federal government, against the will of individual states, might completely redistribute the industrial population.

A possible result of sustaining the claimed federal power would be that every business group which thought itself underprivileged might demand that a tax be laid on its vendors or vendees, the proceeds to be appropriated to the redress of its deficiency of income.  These illustrations are given, not to suggest that any of the purposes mentioned are unworthy, but to demonstrate the scope of the principle for which the government contends; to test the principle by its applications; to point out that, by the exercise of the asserted power, Congress would, in effect, under the pretext of exercising the taxing power, in reality accomplish prohibited ends.  It cannot be said that they envisage improbable legislation.  The supposed cases are no more improbable than would the present act have been deemed a few years ago.

Until recently no suggestion of the existence of any such power in the federal government has been advanced.  The expressions of the framers of the Constitution, the decisions of this court interpreting that instrument and the writings of great commentators will be searched in vain for any suggestion that there exists in the clause under discussion or elsewhere in the Constitution, the authority whereby every provision and every fair, implication from that instrument may be subverted, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power in every state of the Union, superseding all local control or regulation of the affairs or concerns of the states.

Hamilton himself, the leading advocate of broad interpretation of the power to tax and to appropriate for the general welfare, never suggested that any power granted by the Constitution could be used for the destruction of local self-government in the states.  Story countenances no such doctrine.  It seems never to have occurred to them, or to those who have agreed with them, that the general welfare of the United States (which has aptly been termed "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,”) might be served by obliterating the constituent members of the Union.  But to this fatal conclusion the doctrine contended for would inevitably lead.  And its sole premise is that, though the makers of the Constitution, in erecting the federal government, intended sedulously to limit and define its powers, so as to reserve to the states and the people sovereign power, to be wielded by the states and their citizens and not to be invaded by the United States, they nevertheless by a single clause gave power to the Congress to tear down the barriers, to invade the states” jurisdiction, and to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.  The argument, when seen in its true character and in the light of its inevitable results, must be rejected.

Since, as we have pointed out, there was no power in the Congress to impose the contested exaction, it could not lawfully ratify or confirm what an executive officer had done in that regard.  Consequently the Act of 1935, 30, adding section 21(b) to Act of May 12, 1933, does not affect the rights of the parties.

The judgment is affirmed.