Johanns v livestock marketing association

Where it is feasible, a syllabus headnote will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. The Beef Promotion and Research Act of Beef Act establishes a federal policy of promoting and marketing beef and beef products.

The assessment funds, among other things, beef promotional campaigns approved by the Operating Committee and the Secretary. Respondents, associations whose members pay the checkoff and individuals whose cattle are subject to the checkoff, challenged the program on First Amendment grounds, relying on United States v. The District Court found that the Beef Act and Order unconstitutionally compel respondents to subsidize speech to which they object.

State Bar of Cal.

{{ywegyrayeku.web.fc2.comtle}}

Keller and Abood led the Court to sustain a compelled-subsidy challenge to an assessment whose only purpose was to fund mushroom advertising. However, the speech in United Foods , Keller, and Abood was found, or presumed, to be private. The compelled-subsidy cases have consistently respected the principle that compelled support of private speech differs from compelled support of government speech.

The Court has generally assumed, though not squarely held, that such funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns. In fact, the message is effectively controlled by the Federal Government.

The Secretary also has final approval authority over every word in every promotional campaign, and his subordinates attend and participate in meetings at which proposals are developed. By contrast, in Keller the compelled subsidy funded communicative activities that were not prescribed by law or developed under official government supervision.

That citizens have no First Amendment right not to fund government speech is no less true when, as here, the funding is achieved through targeted assessments devoted to a program to which some assessed citizens object, rather than through general taxes. Livestock Marketing Association et al. Cornell University Law School Search Cornell.

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn. (Dissent by Justice Kennedy) :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Toggle navigation Support Us! About LII Who We Are What We Do Who Pays For This Contact Us Get the law Constitution Supreme Court U.

First Amendment | Nahmod Law | Page 5

Code CFR Federal Rules Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure U. Law by jurisdiction State law Uniform laws Federal law World law Lawyer directory Legal encyclopedia Business law Constitutional law Criminal law Family law Employment law Money and Finances More Help out Give Sponsor Advertise Create Promote Join Lawyer Directory.

HTML version PDF version.