First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
High court won't compel mushroom growers to fund generic ads

By The Associated Press
06.25.01

WASHINGTON — A mandatory advertising campaign for the mushroom industry violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-to-3 ruling in U.S. v. United Foods was a victory for mushroom producer United Foods Inc., which argued that a mandatory mushroom promotional campaign forced the company to pay for ads that benefited its competitors.

"Just as the First Amendment may prevent the government from prohibiting speech, the amendment may prevent the government from compelling individuals to express certain views," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The Justice Department took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the generic ads benefit all producers, and that the Agriculture Department has an interest in seeing an entire industry succeed.

The government said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of United Foods threatened similar marketing programs for milk, beef, pork, eggs and cotton. Federal and state regulators run dozens of generic ad programs worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The "Got Milk?" campaign, featuring celebrities wearing a fake milk mustache, costs about $100 million a year.

Producers pay into a common pool, which is then used to orchestrate generic ads.

The court previously ruled that joint advertisements are constitutional in heavily regulated industries such as California fruit production.

Kennedy said the mushroom case is different, because the mushroom market is less regulated and mushroom producers do not cooperate the way the fruit producers do.

It is not clear where today's ruling leaves other industry ad campaigns such as the "Got Milk?" ads for dairy producers. Applying the reasoning in today's case, the constitutionality of individual ad campaigns would be judged by the degree of cohesion and regulation in each industry.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy in the majority.

Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented.

United Foods has refused to pay its assessment since 1996, arguing that common ads disproportionately helped the company's smaller competitors. Why, the company asked, should it be forced to spend money for speech, in this case advertisements, that harmed its bottom line?

When United Foods refused to pay, the federal government moved to enforce a 1990 law forming a joint "Mushroom Council" and authorizing collection of the advertising money.

Action stalled while the Supreme Court considered the 1997 California fruit producers' case, Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said then that generic ads issued under a federal marketing order were "a species of economic regulation that should enjoy the same strong presumption of validity that we accord to other policy judgments made by Congress."

In other words, the generic ads should not trigger a free-speech argument under the First Amendment, the court said then.

Lower courts agreed with the government that the 1997 decision applied to United Foods. But in 1999, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit went the other way. "The mushroom business is entirely different from the collectivized California fruit tree business," the appeals court said.

The Supreme Court agreed and upheld the lower court's decision.


Previous
Supreme Court weighs dispute over generic mushroom ads
Justices appear divided as they consider whether forcing farmers to fund advertising program amounts to government-compelled speech. 04.18.01

Related

Pork council wants to know if mandatory ad campaign is constitutional

Group asks federal judge to approve settlement worked out by Bush administration to keep industry-funded research, promotion program going. 07.28.01

Judge hears beef over mandatory ad campaign
Cattlemen say promotion fee violates their free-speech rights, but Beef Board says ads are government speech not limited by the First Amendment. 01.17.02

These dairy farmers fed up with 'Got Milk?' promotion
Supreme Court has produced mixed bag of rulings on mandatory ad campaigns for food producers. 04.04.02

Beef Board can't force producers to fund generic ads
Federal judge orders halt to collections for checkoff program, which requires ranchers to pay a $1 per-head fee on cattle sold in the U.S. for beef promotion, research. 06.24.02

Generic ads get under skin of alligator company
Louisiana processor claims his product is superior, he shouldn’t have to pay for industry-wide marketing. 07.25.02

Court agrees company got raw deal on alligator-hide advertising
Federal judge sides with Pelts & Skins, rules that mandatory fees paid to Louisiana wildlife department constituted forced commercial speech. 05.14.03

Court rulings put mandatory ad campaigns in jeopardy
Recent federal decisions striking down beef, mushroom promotions could signal legal trouble for other farmer-funded programs. 07.02.02

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

print this   Print


Last system update: Thursday, August 21, 2008 | 22:27:04
 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