WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Dec. 8 on a popular promotional and educational program that could have dramatic implications on the future of any tire industry check-off program.
The case that went before the court, Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Association, pits the program that created the well-known “Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner” promotional effort against a group of cattle ranchers who object to being forced to pay for a promotional message with which they do not entirely agree.
The dissident ranchers, who feel the campaign should specifically support U.S. raised beef instead of offering a generic message, won an earlier federal appeals court ruling that the beef check-off program, financed by a $1 assessment on every head of cattle sold, violated their First Amendment rights.
Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor who is representing the dissenting ranchers, told the court that forcing cattle ranchers to pay for a program they don’t support violates their First Amendment rights.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler countered that check-off programs are basically government programs and that the assessments the ranchers agreed to pay are much like “other taxes the government levies.”
Justice Antonin Scalia said, “Every time we pay taxes we’re supporting government speech we don’t agree with.”
The U.S. government, which is defending the program before the Supreme Court, claims the beef check-off program is protected government speech, and, as such, is not subject to the First Amendment. Kneedler told the court that the First Amendment prevents the government from limiting an individual’s speech, but does not limit the government’s speech.
Several justices noted that the promotional material, including TV commercials, make no mention of the government, only the cattleman’s group. Justice David Souter said, “The implication is that he who pays is the person whose speech is being broadcast.”
This is the third time in seven years the Supreme Court has heard cases involving check-off programs. However, this time it is expected the court’s decision will leave no question as to the constitutional validity of these government supported programs, which were initially created to prop up struggling agricultural businesses.
At the same time, the future of any check-off program to aid the tire industry is also at stake. Fearing any such program would be ruled unconstitutional, the Rubber Manufacturers Association earlier this year decided against supporting the Tire Industry Association’s (TIA) drive for such a program. TIA, whose own legal counsel felt a tire check-off program could survive constitutional scrutiny, shelved the plan, but is expected to revive it based on the outcome of the beef ranchers’ case.
The court is expected to rule on beef ranchers’ case sometime next year.
_______________________________________
Click here to view the rest of today’s headlines.
