Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association

Last updated
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 8, 2004
Decided May 23, 2005
Full case nameMike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, et al v. Livestock Marketing Association, et al'
Docket no. 03-1164
Citations544 U.S. 550 ( more )
125 S. Ct. 2055; 161 L. Ed. 2d 896; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4343
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorJudgment for Respondents, 207 F. Supp. 2d 992 (D.S.D. 2002); affirmed, 335 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 541 U.S. 1062(2004).
Holding
Check-offs fund government speech; the government cannot be sued under the First Amendment
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas, Breyer
ConcurrenceThomas
ConcurrenceBreyer
ConcurrenceGinsburg
DissentSouter, joined by Stevens, Kennedy
DissentKennedy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005), is a First Amendment case of the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue was whether a beef producer could be compelled to contribute to beef industry advertising. [1]

Contents

Facts and prior history

Congress charters commodity checkoff programs compelling all producers of certain commodities to contribute to common research and advertising programs. The beef industry is covered by the Beef Promotion and Research Act (1985). Cattle producers disagreeing with the fee and represented by the Livestock Marketing Association sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal district court. The respondents alleged the government-required fee for advertising was compelled speech and violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The USDA argued the advertising was government speech immune from First Amendment challenge.

The district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had found for the Livestock Marketing Association previously, ruling that the program violated the First Amendment and that the advertising was compelled and not government speech. [2]

In a parallel petition (No. 03–1165), the Nebraska Cattlemen sided with the USDA and sued the Livestock Marketing Association. At the Supreme Court, the two cases were consolidated.

Court decision

The Supreme Court's decision was announced on May 23, 2005, and delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia. The decision was 6–3 in favor of the USDA's position. Check-offs would continue. Advertising by these industry groups was government speech, therefore there was no infringement of First Amendment rights.

Case revisited

The case is starting another trip through the courts, starting in Montana with Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue . [3]

The Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) and USDA oversee the collection and spending of checkoff funds. Additionally, all producers selling cattle or calves, for any reason and regardless of age or sex, must pay $1-per-head. The buyer generally is responsible for collecting $1-per-head from the seller, but both are responsible for seeing that the dollar is collected and paid. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cattle feeding</span> Description of husbandry practice

There are different systems of feeding cattle in animal husbandry. For pastured animals, grass is usually the forage that composes the majority of their diet. Cattle reared in feedlots are fed hay supplemented with grain, soy and other ingredients to increase the energy density of the feed. The debate is whether cattle should be raised on fodder primarily composed of grass or a concentrate. The issue is complicated by the political interests and confusion between labels such as "free range", "organic", or "natural". Cattle raised on a primarily foraged diet are termed grass-fed or pasture-raised; for example meat or milk may be called grass-fed beef or pasture-raised dairy. The term "pasture-raised" can lead to confusion with the term "free range", which does not describe exactly what the animals eat.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture; it maintains programs in five commodity areas: cotton and tobacco; dairy; fruit and vegetable; livestock and seed; and poultry. These programs provide testing, standardization, grading and market news services for those commodities, and oversee marketing agreements and orders, administer research and promotion programs, and purchase commodities for federal food programs. The AMS enforces certain federal laws such as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act and the Federal Seed Act. The AMS budget is $1.2 billion. It is headquartered in the Jamie L. Whitten Building in Washington, D.C.

In the United States, a commodity checkoff program promotes and provides research and information for a particular agricultural commodity without reference to specific producers or brands. It collects funds through a checkoff mechanism that is sometimes called checkoff dollars, from producers of a particular agricultural commodity and uses these funds to promote and do research on that particular commodity. As stated earlier the organizations must promote their commodity in a generic way without reference to a particular producer. Checkoff programs attempt to improve the market position of the covered commodity by expanding markets, increasing demand, and developing new uses and markets. Checkoff programs amount to $750 million per year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Cattlemen's Beef Association</span>

National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) is an American trade association and lobbying group working for American beef producers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Packers and Stockyards Act</span> U.S. federal law

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 regulates meatpacking, livestock dealers, market agencies, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices, giving undue preferences, apportioning supply, manipulating prices, or creating a monopoly. It was enacted following the release in 1919 of the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the meatpacking industry.

The government speech doctrine, in American constitutional law, says that the government is not infringing the free speech rights of individual people when the government declines to use viewpoint neutrality in its own speech. More generally, the degree to which governments have free speech rights remains unsettled, including the degree of free speech rights that states may have under the First Amendment versus federal speech restrictions.

"Beef. It's What's for Dinner" is an American advertising slogan and campaign aimed at promoting the consumption of beef. The ad campaign was launched in 1992 by the National Livestock and Meat Board and is funded by the Beef Checkoff Program with the creative guidance of VMLY&R.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard F. Cebull</span> American judge

Richard Frank Cebull is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

The National Pork Board is a program sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service whose purpose is to provide consumer information, perform industry-related research, and promote pork as a food product. The board's activities are funded by a mandatory commodity checkoff program, which requires hog producers to pay a small percentage-based fee each time an animal is sold.

"Pork. The Other White Meat." was an advertising slogan developed by advertising agency Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardt in 1987 for the National Pork Board. The campaign was paid for using a checkoff fee (tax) collected from the initial sale of all pigs and pork products, including imports. Medical researchers and the United States Department of Agriculture classify it as red meat.

The Sheep Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1994 enabled domestic sheep producers and feeders and importers of sheep and sheep products to develop, finance, and carry out a nationally coordinated program for sheep and sheep product promotion, research, and information. The program is funded as a commodity checkoff program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Feeder cattle</span> Young cattle soon to be sent to fattening, especially those intended for sale before finishing

Feeder cattle, in some countries or regions called store cattle, are young cattle mature enough either to undergo backgrounding or to be fattened in preparation for slaughter. They may be steers or heifers. The term often implicitly reflects an intent to sell to other owners for fattening (finishing). Backgrounding occurs at backgrounding operations, and fattening occurs at a feedlot. Feeder calves are less than 1 year old; feeder yearlings are between 1 and 2 years old. Both types are often produced in a cow-calf operation. After attaining a desirable weight, feeder cattle become finished cattle that are sold to a packer. Packers slaughter the cattle and sell the meat in carcass boxed form.

The American Egg Board (AEB) is a United States checkoff marketing organization, which focuses on marketing and promotion of eggs for human consumption. The AEB is best known for its long-running slogan, "The Incredible, Edible Egg", and the Just Mayo scandal.

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) is an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia that is responsible for promoting the economic growth and development of Virginia's agricultural sector. It also provides environmental protection services and consumer protection programs.

The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order is a provision of the 2014 U.S. Farm Bill that established a U.S. Department of Agriculture commodity checkoff program for cultivated Christmas trees. The program is funded through a $.15 per tree fee paid by growers. The program creates a marketing program similar to other checkoff programs such as "Got Milk?" or "Beef. It's What's For Dinner". The order was briefly implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service in November 2011. After a wave of political criticism the rule that established the program was officially stayed before being passed into law over two years later.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) is a non-profit membership organization that works on behalf of Montana cattle ranchers.

The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is an advocacy group promoting the interests of cow-calf producers, feedlots, and packers in the Canadian beef industry. Throughout its history, the CCA has worked to improve market access for Canadian beef producers and in lobbying efforts with the Canadian government.

<i>Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA</i>

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA is a challenge to USDA rules that allow Mexican and Canadian beef to be labelled as domestic beef.

<i>Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue</i>

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue is a case in which plaintiffs allege that checkoff dollars are being used to support Canadian and Mexican beef. Checkoffs are mandatory contributions, from beef producers in this case, which are used for generic industry advertising and research.

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers. The decision effected identified that some commercial speech may have weaker First Amendment free speech protections than non-commercial speech and that states can compel such commercial speech to protect their interests; future cases have relied on the "Zauderer standard" to determine the constitutionality of state laws that compel commercial speech as long as the information to be disclosed is "purely factual and uncontroversial".

References

  1. Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005).
  2. Livestock Marketing Association v. USDA, 335F.3d711 ( 8th Cir. 2003).
  3. Flynn, Dan (Oct 10, 2016). "Beef Checkoff goes on the griddle Tuesday in Montana". Food Safety News. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
  4. "About the Beef Checkoff Program". Beef Checkoff. Retrieved 2020-09-20.