Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association

544 U.S. 550 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 announced a federal policy of promoting the marketing and consumption of 'beef and beef products,' using funds raised by an assessment on cattle sales and importation. The assessment is collected primarily by state beef councils, which then forward the proceeds to the Beef Board. Since 1986 more than $1 billion has been collected. A large fraction of that sum has been spent on promotional projects authorized by the Beef Act-many using the familiar trademarked slogan 'Beef. It's What's for Dinner.' The Board also funded overseas marketing efforts; market and food-science research, such as evaluations of the nutritional value of beef; and informational campaigns for both consumers and beef producers. Livestock (P) and others sued the Secretary, the Department of Agriculture, and the Board in that the Board impermissibly used funds to send communications supportive of the beef program to beef producers. The District Court granted a limited preliminary injunction, which forbade the continued use of funds to laud the beef program or to lobby for governmental action relating to the checkoff. Ps then amended their complaint to assert a First Amendment challenge to the use of the beef checkoff for promotional activity. Ps noted that the advertising promotes beef as a generic commodity, which, they contended, impedes their efforts to promote the superiority of American beef, grain-fed beef, or certified Angus or Hereford beef. The District Court ruled for Ps on their First Amendment claim. The Act and Beef Order unconstitutionally compels Ps to subsidize speech to which they object, and rejected the D's contention that the checkoff survives First Amendment scrutiny because it funds only government speech. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that government speech status is relevant only to First Amendment challenges to the speech's content, not to challenges to its compelled funding. Compelled funding of speech, it held, may violate the First Amendment even if the speech in question is the government's. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.