Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association
544 U.S. 550 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Compelled subsidies for promotional advertising do not violate the First Amendment if the message is effectively controlled by the government, thereby constituting government speech, regardless of whether the program is funded by a targeted assessment on a specific group.
Facts:
- The Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 established a federal policy of promoting the marketing and consumption of beef.
- The Act required the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a $1-per-head assessment, or 'checkoff', on all sales and importation of cattle.
- These funds were used for promotional campaigns, including the well-known slogan, 'Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner.'
- The campaigns were developed by an Operating Committee composed of beef producers and importers, but the Secretary of Agriculture had to approve every project and the content of each communication.
- Respondents, Livestock Marketing Association and others, are associations and individual cattle ranchers who pay the mandatory checkoff.
- Respondents objected to the generic pro-beef message, contending it impeded their efforts to promote the superiority of their specific products, such as American beef or grain-fed beef.
- Many of the promotional advertisements included the tagline, 'Funded by America’s Beef Producers.'
Procedural Posture:
- Livestock Marketing Association and other cattle producers (Respondents) sued the Secretary of Agriculture in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. United Foods, Inc., Respondents amended their complaint to claim the Beef Act's checkoff violated their First Amendment rights.
- The District Court ruled for Respondents, holding the beef checkoff unconstitutionally compelled them to subsidize speech and rejected the government's argument that the advertising was government speech.
- The District Court entered a permanent injunction against the collection of the beef checkoff.
- The Secretary of Agriculture (Petitioner) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that even if the advertising was government speech, the compelled funding of it still violated the First Amendment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mandatory assessment on cattle producers, levied under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 to fund a generic beef advertising campaign, violate the First Amendment by compelling producers to subsidize speech to which they object, when the government retains final approval authority over the campaign's message?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. The mandatory assessment does not violate the First Amendment because the promotional campaign qualifies as government speech. When the government itself is the speaker, it is not barred from compelling financial support from a targeted group of citizens for its message. Here, Congress directed the program, and the Secretary of Agriculture—a politically accountable official—exercises final approval authority over every word of the message. This comprehensive control distinguishes the beef program from compelled subsidies for private speech found unconstitutional in prior cases like United Foods. The fact that the program is funded by a targeted assessment rather than general tax revenue is irrelevant, as citizens have no First Amendment right to refuse to fund government speech. The tagline 'Funded by America’s Beef Producers' does not render the program unconstitutional on its face, as the Act does not require attribution, and respondents failed to establish a sufficient record for an as-applied challenge showing they were personally being associated with the message.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
I join the Court's opinion. While any regulation compelling the funding of advertising must face stringent First Amendment scrutiny, an exception exists for the government's own speech. There is no analytical distinction between speech funded by general taxes and speech funded by targeted assessments. However, if the advertisements had objectively associated their message with the individual respondents, they would have a valid as-applied First Amendment challenge for compelled speech, but the record does not show this.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
I join the Court's opinion. While I continue to believe that such assessments are a form of economic regulation rather than speech, as I argued in my United Foods dissent, I accept the 'government speech' theory as a solution to the problem presented by these cases.
Concurring in the judgment - Justice Ginsburg
I concur in the judgment but not the reasoning. I resist classifying the promotional messages as government speech, especially given that the government's own official dietary guidelines take a more cautious view of beef consumption. However, I believe the assessments qualify as permissible economic regulation, and for that reason, the program should be upheld.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes. The mandatory assessment violates the First Amendment. For a compelled subsidy to be justified as government speech, the government must make itself politically accountable by clearly indicating that the message is its own. The beef advertisements fail this test because they are attributed to 'America’s Beef Producers,' which effectively masks the government's role and prevents the public from holding government officials accountable for the message. Without a requirement of explicit government attribution, there is no effective check on the government's power to compel special subsidies, rendering this program indistinguishable from the unconstitutional program in United Foods.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
I join Justice Souter's dissent. The speech at issue cannot meaningfully be considered government speech. I would reserve for another day the separate difficult question of whether the government could target a discrete group to pay for speech even if the government clearly identified it as its own.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the government speech doctrine, establishing it as a powerful defense against compelled subsidy challenges under the First Amendment. By focusing on the degree of government control over the message rather than the source of funding, the Court created a clear path for the government to operate commodity checkoff programs like those for beef, pork, and milk. The ruling effectively narrows the precedent set in United States v. United Foods, Inc., limiting its application to programs where the government lacks ultimate editorial control. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on the factual question of whether the government's supervision and approval authority is sufficiently robust to render the resulting message 'government speech.'
Unlock the full brief for Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association