# Brief for the US in Opposition — Kissinger v. United States (No. 894) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0199%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the US in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1957 ## Text ctl a cae ae AD OE ALLIAGE GE, ON PETITION FOR A REE CERTIORARI To THE UNITED STATES court OF AEs FOR THE THIRD O1RCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION : The sptnton of thh Tinited iatia Court af Appeals fon 0a Ses: snes (2 2 sewere i 20 The eed aac oe be ju sdiet jon of this Court i is in- : ~ Foed under 28. 8.0 1254(1) and 2101(c). «ay ae QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1, Whether it was error to grant the government’s mvtion for su.:mary judgment without affording the petitioner an opportunity to introduce evidence _ which, the petitioner contends, would show that the - enforcement of the Agricultural. Adjustment Act of 1938 has failed to sccomplish the congressional purpose and, therefore, that its continued enforcement is un-. reasonable and is in violation of the due process clause of ik Fifth Amendment. . Whether the provisions of the First PSO rhe to the free exercise of religion afford a basis for exempting the petitioner from the civil penalty — requirements of the. Agricultural Adjustiaent Hat of 1938. STATUTE IN VOLVED The relevant prov risions of the. Agricultural Adjust-. ment Act of 1938, as amended, are set forth in Open: ae C to the petition (Pet. 33-36). STATEMENT | > This action was instituted to recover the civil penalty - imposed by the Agricuitural Adjustinent Act of 1938 on petitioner’s 1954 ‘farm marketing excess’ cf wheat. The petitioner admits that he planted and har-_ vested wheat in 1954 in excess of the wheat acreage allotment established for his farm, that he has not stored or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture any part of such excess, and that he has refused to ‘pay the — statutory penalties thereon, amounting to’ $47.04 (Pet. 37.43). The petitioner also admits that he did not apply for a downward adjustment of his farm market- ing eXeess. or for an administrative review of the farm 3 marketing quota or farm marketing excess determined _ for the farm (Pet. 37-43). a: The district court found that thate. was no genuine issue as to any material. fact and granted the govern- — ment’s moti-n for summary judgment (Pet. 24-27). The court of appeals ceanonnsy affirmed this pada ee ment (Pet. 28-32). : = : ARGUMENT RE Ss 1, The petitioner’ s contention that the ‘Gnfureenient : -of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 has failed - to accomplish | the purpoor: of the Act does not raise an motion for summary judgment. - Iti is settled that oes tions relating to the “‘wisdora, need, and effectiveness of. a particular [legislative] project”? are “questions. for . the Congress, not the courts.” Oklakoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508, 527, See also, Arizona v. California, © fs “283 U.S. 423, 456; Everard’s Breweries v. Day, 265 | U.S, 545, 559; Chicago, B. ¢ Q. R. R. Co. vy. McGuire, set 219 U.S, 549, 569. This petition presents no basis for rev stata: this well established principle, a3 2. The statutory: provisions for setting wheat mar- keting quotas were reviewed, m extenso, in Wickard vr Filburn, 317 U.S, 111, 118-129, and upheld as a valid exercise of the power of Congress to regulate commerce. The Act does not prohibit the production of wheat; the civil penalties of ‘45 per centum of the parity price per « bushel of wheat” relate solely to the farm marketing excess of wheat. 7 U.S.C. Supp. ¥, 1840(2).. Peti- tioner may produce as much wheat as he chooses and he may market as much of his produetion ashe chooses. The ouly Aimitation és a civil penalty on the farm mar- keting excess. 7 ULS.C. Supp, V. 1340(2). Moreover, wipies : : ; ; i ; i Can “4 Bis . ig oy r oe: --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0199%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.