Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue

Last updated
R-CALF v Sonny Perdue
MontanaDistrictCourt.gif
United States District Court for the District of Montana
Full case nameRanchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund
United Stockgrowers of Washington v.
Sonny Perdue in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture and
United States Department of Agriculture
Judge sittingBrian Morris
Plaintiff(s)Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund
United Stockgrowers of Washington
Defendant(s)Sonny Perdue and
United States Department of Agriculture

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue (No. 4:16-cv-00041-BMM) 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. [1]

Contents

This case is distinguished from Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA (No. 2:17-cv-00223), a challenge to USDA rules that allow Mexican and Canadian beef to be labelled as domestic beef. [2]

Facts and prior history

In 2016 the United States Department of Agriculture rescinded regulations requiring Mexican and Canadian beef be marked as imported. Checkoff advertising does not distinguish between domestic and imported beef. Plaintiff disagrees with advertising that promotes imported beef to its detriment. It claims compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. This matter had been addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005).

Latest developments and next steps

In June 2017, the court issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the Montana Beef Board from using beef producers' checkoff contributions for advertising, unless the producers approve in advance. [1] The decision hung on the distinction between commercial speech and government speech. Compelled commercial speech is a First Amendment violation. This is in contraposition to Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005).

In September, the court stayed further proceedings until the Ninth District Court of Appeals rules on the USDA appeal. [3]

Related Research Articles

Food libel laws Laws passed in some US states to make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel

Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in thirteen U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These thirteen states are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas. Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.

Cattle feeding system to feed cattle

There are different systems of feeding cattle in animal husbandry, which may have different advantages and disadvantages. Most cattle in the US have a fodder that is composed of at least some forage. In fact, most beef cattle are raised on pasture from birth in the spring until autumn. 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 in order 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.

In the United States, a commodity checkoff program collects funds through a checkoff mechanism, sometimes called checkoff dollars, from producers of a particular agricultural commodity and uses these funds to promote and do research on that particular commodity. 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.

National Cattlemens Beef Association

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

Packers and Stockyards Act

The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 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.

Country of origin labeling (COOL) is a requirement signed into American law under Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1638a as Notice of country of origin. This law had required retailers to provide country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef, pork, and lamb. The program exempted processed meats. The United States Congress passed an expansion of the COOL requirements on September 29, 2008, to include more food items such as fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables. Regulations were implemented on August 1, 2008, August 31, 2008, and May 24, 2013. The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act is the latest amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. This act forms the basis of the current COOL requirements.

"Beef. It's What's for Dinner" is an American advertising slogan and campaign aimed to promote the benefits of incorporating beef into a healthy diet. The campaign is funded by the Beef Checkoff Program with the creative guidance of VMLY&R.

Richard F. Cebull 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.

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.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>Florence v. Shurtleff</i>

Florence v. Shurtleff, Civil No. 2:05CV000485, was a case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order stating that individuals could not be prosecuted for posting adult content that was constitutionally protected on general access websites, nor could they be civilly liable for failing to prevent access to adult content, so long as the material is identifiable by filtering software. The order was the result of a 2005 lawsuit, The King’s English v. Shurtleff, brought by Utah bookstores, artists, Internet Service Providers and the other organizations challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of a Utah Law intended to protect minors from adult content.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a US constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5-4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.

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.

<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.

Compelled speech is a transmission of expression required by law. A related legal concept is protected speech. Just as freedom of speech protects free expression, in many cases it similarly protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which they disagree.

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".

The Canadian Beef Cattle Research, Market Development and Promotion Agency, also known as the Canadian Beef Check-Off Agency operates the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off (CBCC). The legal name was officially shortened to the Canadian Beef Check-Off Agency (CBCA) in February 2017.

References

  1. 1 2 "Order" (PDF). D. Mont. June 21, 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  2. "Complaint" (PDF). E.D. Wash. June 19, 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  3. "Docket 52". District Court for the District of Montana. Retrieved 25 September 2017.