Imagine it’s 1936. The Great Depression is grinding the American spirit into the dirt. Farmers are watching their livelihoods evaporate as crop prices plummet. In Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, including a massive, controversial piece of legislation called the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Then, a cotton processor named William Butler says "no."
He refuses to pay a federal tax. That defiance led to United States v. Butler, a Supreme Court showdown that didn't just kill a New Deal program—it actually redefined how the federal government is allowed to spend your money.
Honestly, the case is a bit of a legal paradox. On one hand, the Court told the federal government it couldn't regulate farming. On the other hand, it gave Congress a "blank check" for spending that we still use today. You've probably felt the ripples of this case without even knowing it.
The Drama Behind the Tax
The government’s plan was pretty straightforward, if a bit weird. They wanted to raise crop prices by telling farmers to grow less. To pay those farmers for not farming, the government slapped a "processing tax" on the middleman—the people milling the flour or processing the cotton.
Hoosac Mills, a cotton company in Massachusetts, hit a wall. They went into receivership, and the guy in charge, William Butler, looked at the bill from the feds and decided the tax was a sham. He argued it wasn't a tax for "revenue" at all. It was a way for the feds to stick their noses into local farming, which he believed was a state matter.
📖 Related: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
What the Court Actually Decided
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Justice Owen Roberts delivered an opinion that was, frankly, a wild ride of legal gymnastics.
He had to settle a 150-year-old debate between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Madison thought the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution only allowed Congress to spend money on things specifically listed elsewhere in the document (like post offices or the military). Hamilton, ever the fan of big government, thought Congress could spend money on anything that helped the country's general welfare.
The Good News for the Feds
In a surprising twist, the Court sided with Hamilton. They ruled that Congress has a broad, independent power to spend money for the general welfare. It doesn't have to be tied to a specific "enumerated power." This part of the United States v. Butler decision is why we have things like Social Security today. It opened the floodgates for federal spending.
The Bad News for the New Deal
But then, Roberts pulled the rug out. He said that while the spending power is broad, it can’t be used to "purchase" compliance in areas where the federal government has no right to regulate.
👉 See also: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
Since the Constitution doesn't give the feds the power to control agriculture (that’s a state thing under the 10th Amendment), the AAA was unconstitutional. Basically, the Court said: "You can spend the money, but you can't use it to bully the states into doing things they're supposed to control."
Why This Case Is Kinda Confusing
The ruling was a 6-3 split. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote a scathing dissent. He called the majority's logic "tortured." Stone argued that if the government can spend money for the general welfare, it should be able to set conditions on that money.
He famously warned his fellow justices about "judicial arrogance." He reminded them that the only check on the Court’s power is their own "self-restraint." It was a brutal call-out that still gets quoted in law schools today.
The Lasting Legacy of United States v. Butler
You might think the feds just gave up on farming after this. Nope. They just got smarter.
✨ Don't miss: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property
A few years later, they passed a new version of the AAA and justified it using the "Commerce Clause" instead of the taxing power. The Supreme Court eventually went along with it. While United States v. Butler stopped one specific tax, it failed to stop the expansion of the federal government in the long run.
However, the "Hamiltonian" view of spending remains the law of the land. Every time the federal government gives a grant to a state for highways or education, they are leaning on the door that Justice Roberts propped open in 1936.
Actionable Insights for Legal History Buffs
- Read the Dissent: If you want to see a Supreme Court Justice lose their cool, read Justice Stone’s dissent in this case. It's a masterclass in judicial shade.
- Track the 10th Amendment: Watch how modern cases regarding "federal mandates" (like environmental laws or healthcare) still reference the "coercion" argument from the Butler case.
- Understand the "Spending Power": Realize that most federal programs you interact with aren't "laws" in the traditional sense, but rather "spending conditions" that states agree to follow to get federal cash.
- Compare to Wickard v. Filburn: To see how the government eventually won the war on agricultural regulation, look up the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, which basically made the Butler restriction irrelevant.
The tension between state rights and federal spending didn't end in 1936. It just moved into different rooms of the courthouse. Knowing how United States v. Butler set the stage helps make sense of why our government spends the way it does today.