I came across this today, so if I'm off a bit on my understanding please correct me.
Roscoe Filburn, a farmer in Ohio in 1942, was fined for growing more wheat than was allowed under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. He sold the amount of wheat allowed, but kept the surplus for his own personal use. He was fined for this, but refused to pay because he didn't sell over the allotted amount. The case went to the supreme court, and they upheld the fines citing his personal use would impact the economy. Links if interested:
The Filburn Foundation
The Institute for Justice
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but this was still a bit of "Seriously?" moment when I read it. A farmer is fined for using surplus wheat for his own use, because he won't be buying it as usual and that could impact economy. Curious to know if this ruling has been used nefariously over the years, if anyone knows more please share!