From the Omaha World-Herald last Saturday, May 22nd:
The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether it will hear arguments defending the constitutionality of the beef and pork checkoffs. The two checkoffs, which use money from livestock sales for ad promotions, have each been ruled unconstitutional in separate appeals courts. * * *"Pork: the other white meat" and "Beef: It's what's for dinner," are examples of the ad campaigns paid for by the checkoff programs. The "Got milk?" dairy promotion was ruled unconstitutional by the 3rd Circuit earlier this year. Here is AP coverage from earlier today:The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in a South Dakota case that livestock producers should not have to be required to help fund the advertising campaign. * * * Last October, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier ruling to end the mandatory pork checkoff program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture appealed the decision. In both cases, judges rejected the argument that the checkoffs are tantamount to government speech and therefore not subject to the First Amendment.
For nearly 20 years beef producers have had to pay fees that are used to promote the industry, but lower courts have ruled that the beef programs -- and others like them -- violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.For earlier Indiana Law Blog entries, see this one from 3/29/04, this one from 2/24/04, and this one from 11/1/03. Posted by Marcia Oddi at May 24, 2004 05:57 PMOpponents of such fees contend that the mandatory fees infringed on their free speech rights because they are forced to pay for some marketing campaigns with which they don't agree.
Justices will hear arguments this fall in the Bush administration appeal. Solicitor General Theodore Olson said a lower court ruling against the government ended successful public relations campaigns and important research and public education on mad cow disease. * * *
The case forces the court to return to a question it has visited before: Do mandatory government advertising programs violate the free-speech rights of producers who disagree with how the money is spent?
In 2001, the court ruled that a mandatory campaign for the mushroom industry violated the First Amendment. But justices have allowed joint advertisements in heavily regulated industries such as California fruit production.