On February 5, 1937, a political earthquake shook Washington with lasting consequences for American agriculture. President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill—quickly nicknamed the “court-packing plan”—after a string of Supreme Court rulings had imperiled central pillars of New Deal farm policy. Though the proposal ultimately failed, the showdown reset the balance between Congress, the courts, and the economy, clearing the path for the modern system of price supports, production controls, conservation incentives, and marketing orders that still shape U.S. agriculture today.

Why farm policy was at the heart of the fight

Throughout the early 1930s, low commodity prices, crushing farm debt, and ecological disaster on the Great Plains demanded aggressive federal action. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA) paid farmers to reduce acreage in major crops—wheat, cotton, corn, rice, tobacco, and others—seeking to lift prices by rebalancing supply. The program was financed by taxes on processors (for example, cotton gins and flour mills) and administered through new USDA authorities.

But on January 6, 1936, in United States v. Butler, the Supreme Court struck down the AAA’s core financing mechanism, ruling the processing taxes unconstitutional. The decision threw farm policy into disarray just as producers were struggling to recover from drought and the collapse in demand that defined the early Depression. Congress and USDA scrambled to keep support flowing, pivoting to conservation-oriented payments under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, which reframed acreage reduction as a stewardship practice rather than a market-control tool.

February 5, 1937: FDR moves to reshape the Court

Against that backdrop, Roosevelt sent his court-reform proposal to Congress on February 5, 1937. The bill would allow the president to appoint an additional Supreme Court justice for every sitting justice over age 70 and a half who declined to retire, up to six new seats. The administration said the measure would speed up a backlogged judiciary. Critics saw it as a direct attempt to engineer favorable rulings after decisions that had undercut New Deal economic and agricultural reforms.

The reaction was immediate and fierce. While many farmers and rural cooperatives backed the New Deal’s objectives, the court-packing plan divided public opinion and prompted resistance from both parties in Congress. In the end, Roosevelt’s reform effort failed legislatively. But the political crisis coincided with a rapid shift in constitutional doctrine that would profoundly affect agriculture.

What changed for agriculture after the showdown

Beginning in the spring of 1937, the Supreme Court started to uphold broader federal authority over the economy. That jurisprudential turn—often summed up by the phrase “the switch in time that saved nine”—didn’t revive the exact 1933 blueprint, but it opened the door for a durable re-architecture of farm policy:

• Marketing orders and milk regulation (1937): Congress enacted the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, empowering USDA to stabilize markets through marketing orders—especially in dairy, fruits, and nuts. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld federal milk marketing orders (United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative), cementing a key tool still used today.
• A constitutionally resilient farm program (1938): The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 reestablished production controls and price supports on firmer legal footing, complementing conservation payments. The Supreme Court later sustained these authorities, including in cases upholding tobacco quotas (Mulford v. Smith, 1939) and—most famously—wheat acreage limits even for on-farm use (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).
• Risk management takes root: The 1938 law also created the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, laying groundwork for today’s federally backed crop insurance system that now underpins planting decisions across much of American agriculture.
• Conservation as a policy pillar: By tying payments to soil stewardship in 1936 and then integrating conservation into the broader 1938 framework, the New Deal era codified resource management as a core objective—one that evolved into today’s conservation compliance and incentive programs.

The legacy farmers still live with

The court-packing plan of February 5, 1937 never became law, but the confrontation hastened a constitutional and political settlement that stabilized federal involvement in agriculture. Marketing orders continue to shape prices and quality standards for dairy and specialty crops. Commodity programs and crop insurance cushion producers against price crashes and weather disasters. Conservation programs reward practices that protect soil, water, and wildlife habitat.

In hindsight, February 5 marks a hinge point: a day when a constitutional drama—triggered in no small part by the struggle over how to rescue farm incomes—set the stage for the enduring policy architecture that governs how and what America grows.

Timeline: from crisis to consensus

• 1933: Agricultural Adjustment Act launches supply management and price supports, financed by processor taxes.
• January 6, 1936: Supreme Court strikes down the AAA’s tax mechanism in United States v. Butler.
• 1936: Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act reframes payments around stewardship and acreage reduction.
• February 5, 1937: Roosevelt unveils the court-reform plan, sparking a constitutional showdown.
• June 1937: Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act establishes modern marketing orders.
• 1938: Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 reinstates production controls and creates federal crop insurance.
• 1939–1942: Supreme Court decisions uphold key farm authorities (including milk orders, tobacco quotas, and wheat acreage controls), securing the legal foundation for federal farm programs.

Why this history still matters today

Each farm bill fights over many of the same levers forged in the late 1930s: how far government should go to stabilize markets, how to align producer incentives with environmental outcomes, and how to balance regional and commodity interests under one national policy. The crucible moment that began on February 5, 1937 didn’t just rescue a set of programs—it defined the scope of what U.S. agriculture policy could be. For producers, cooperatives, lenders, and consumers, the ripple effects are embedded in everyday realities from milk checks and crop insurance premiums to conservation cost-share contracts and marketing standards.