No, that ruling by the Court is not an error, it just has different interpretation of the Commerce Clause than yours. Even if you don't necessarily agree with their interpretation (and I'm not sure I do, but they make a compelling argument) it wasn't factual error. It's extremely disingenuous to claim it was. That case entirely is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.