First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
Beef producers can be forced to pay for ads

By The Associated Press
05.23.05

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today ruled that the government was within its rights to force beef producers to pay for a multimillion-dollar "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" marketing program, even when individual cattle producers disagreed with the campaign.

The 6-3 decision is a defeat for farmers in several agricultural sectors who oppose paying mandatory fees for advertising they may later oppose. Currently, there are dozens of similar federal and state ad campaigns for products including milk, pork and cotton, many of which are being challenged on free-speech grounds.

The beef campaign is a form of "government speech" immune to First Amendment challenge, the Court said in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1164. (After the resignation former agriculture secretary Ann Veneman, the name of the case was changed to reflect current Secretary Mike Johanns' name. Another case challenging the beef campaign, Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1165, was consolidated and heard with the Johanns case.)

"The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the federal government," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was a 1985 law requiring producers to pay a $1-per-head fee on cattle sold in the United States. That fee, which generates more than $80 million per year, goes to an industry group appointed by the Agriculture Department to support advertising and research programs.

Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, said the campaign was not government speech. In a dissent, Souter said if the government seeks "to compel specific groups to fund speech with targeted taxes, it must make itself politically accountable for indicating that the content actually is a government message."

The government was sued by ranchers who sell cattle in South Dakota and Montana. They won an appeals court ruling that found the 20-year-old program violated the First Amendment.

The federal government and Nebraska cattlemen appealed to the high court, which has dealt before with questions about government authority to force farmers into joint programs.

In 1997, the Court upheld advertising programs for California fruit in Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. But in 2001, justices struck down a mandatory campaign for the mushroom industry in its ruling in U.S. v. United Foods.

The Court had never decided, however, if such programs were government speech.

Many groups and 34 states supported the government. In California alone, 48 mandatory programs are used to promote produce like grapes and lettuce, and lower courts already have struck down the "Got Milk?" dairy promotion and advertisements calling pork "The Other White Meat."


Previous
High court to decide if beef ads cut constitutional mustard
Justices agree to tackle question of whether government can force cattle producers to pay for mandatory promotions with which they don't agree. 05.24.04

Related

'04 docket includes free-speech cases

By Tony Mauro Cattle ranchers, Oklahoma libertarians, ex-Johnnie Cochran client to get day in Court. 09.29.04

Justices examine government speech in beef-ad case
By Tony Mauro Court hears arguments in another First Amendment challenge to commodity-marketing program. 12.09.04

2004-05 Supreme Court case tracker

Compelled advertising

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | 22:57:30
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links