Yes. Forcing mushroom sellers to pay for these ads violates the First Amendment. You can't be forced to pay for a message you disagree with. In a past case with fruit growers, it was okay because the government heavily controlled the entire fruit market—prices, supply, everything. The ads were just a small part of a much bigger plan. Here, the mushroom business is a free market. The only thing the government is forcing them to do is pay for ads. That is mainly forcing them to fund a message, which the First Amendment doesn't allow.

Yes. This law is unconstitutional. It's one thing to make people in a tightly controlled group pay for something extra as part of the deal. It's totally different to force an independent business to pay for ads that help its competitors. That's not fair and violates their freedom.

Yes. This law is unconstitutional. Forcing someone to pay for speech is the same as forcing them to speak. It should almost always be illegal under the First Amendment.

No. The mushroom ad program should be legal. This case is almost exactly like the old fruit growers case, and the Court is ignoring it. This program is just a form of economic policy to help an industry, like a special tax. It's not forcing anyone to say they personally love mushrooms, it's just making them chip in for ads that help everyone in their business. The Court's decision makes it harder for the government to create smart programs like this.

The Supreme Court said no, the government can't make mushroom growers pay for these ads. This is because the ads aren't part of a bigger set of rules about selling mushrooms. In a previous case about fruit, the ads were part of a whole system of rules about how to sell fruit. But for mushrooms, the ads are the main thing the government is doing. The Court said it's not fair to make some people pay for ads they don't like, especially when it's not part of a bigger plan to organize the whole mushroom market.

Justice Breyer disagreed. He said it should be okay for the government to make mushroom sellers pay for these ads. He thought this was similar to the fruit case and that the Court was changing the rules in a way that could cause problems. He said the ads help sell more mushrooms, which is good for everyone who grows them. He worried that this decision might make it harder for the government to make helpful rules about business in the future.

Justice Stevens agreed with the main decision but added his own thoughts. He said that while sometimes it's okay to make people pay for speech they don't like if it's part of a bigger plan, in this case, it's just about ads. He didn't think it was fair to make one mushroom seller pay for ads that help their competitors.

Justice Thomas also agreed with the main decision. He emphasized that paying for ads is a form of speech, and the government needs a really good reason to force people to pay for speech they don't agree with.

Yes. The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act violates the First Amendment because a compelled subsidy for speech is unconstitutional when the speech itself is the principal object of the regulation, rather than being ancillary to a larger regulatory scheme. The Court distinguished this case from Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., where compelled advertising assessments were upheld because they were part of a comprehensive marketing program that displaced competition and restricted producers' autonomy. In this case, the mushroom market is largely unregulated, and the advertising program is the central and only significant feature of the Act. The First Amendment protects against compelled speech and compelled subsidies for speech, even for commercial purposes. Under the principles of Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. and Keller v. State Bar of Cal., compelled contributions are permissible only when they are germane to a larger regulatory purpose justifying the compelled association; since no such larger purpose exists here, the compelled subsidy is unconstitutional.

Yes. The Act violates the First Amendment. A compelled subsidy for speech is permissible only when it is ancillary or 'germane' to a valid cooperative endeavor in which participants have already surrendered significant liberty to a collective entity. This case involves a 'naked imposition' of compulsion solely for commercial advertising, which is distinct from the comprehensive scheme in Glickman. The government's interest in forcing one entrepreneur to finance advertising that benefits competitors is insufficient to justify this infringement on liberty.

Yes. The Act violates the First Amendment. Reiterating his dissent in Glickman, any regulation that compels the funding of advertising is a form of compelled speech that must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.

No. The Act does not violate the First Amendment. The majority disregards the controlling precedent of Glickman, as the factual differences between the two cases are not constitutionally significant. The mushroom advertising program is a form of economic regulation, not commercial speech, and therefore does not warrant heightened First Amendment scrutiny. The program serves the valid government interest of expanding markets and correcting consumer misinformation, and it does not compel ideological speech or prevent producers from communicating their own messages. The majority's holding creates an unreasoned distinction that could threaten other beneficial forms of economic regulation.

Yes, the First Amendment prohibits the government from requiring mushroom producers to pay for generic mushroom advertising under these circumstances. The compelled contributions for advertising are not part of a broader regulatory scheme that would justify such compulsion. Unlike in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., where the advertising was part of a larger collective enterprise that regulated the market, here the advertising itself is the principal object of the regulatory scheme. The mushroom market is not collectivized, exempted from antitrust laws, or otherwise more extensively regulated. The government's power to compel financial support of other's speech deserves First Amendment protection. While commercial speech may be subject to greater regulation, we find no basis under either Glickman or our other precedents to sustain the compelled assessments in this case. The fact that the speech is in aid of a commercial purpose does not deprive it of First Amendment protection. First Amendment values are at serious risk if the government can compel a particular citizen, or discrete group of citizens, to pay special subsidies for speech on the side that it favors.

No, the First Amendment does not prevent the government from compelling mushroom handlers to fund generic advertising because such a subsidy is permissible when it is ancillary to a valid cooperative endeavor. The majority's decision disregards controlling precedent in Glickman and introduces an unreasoned legal principle that may hinder beneficial forms of economic regulation. The difference between this case and Glickman, which the majority finds fundamental, is not actually critical. The advertising here relates directly to the regulatory program's underlying goal of maintaining and expanding markets for mushrooms. This kind of regulation is more consistent with producer choice than traditional command and control regulation. The program does not significantly interfere with protected speech interests, as it only compels the payment of money, not speech itself. The program furthers, rather than hinders, the basic First Amendment commercial speech objective by promoting the dissemination of truthful information to consumers. There is no special risk of other forms of speech-related harm. The Court's decision sets an unfortunate precedent that could lead to striking down similar beneficial programs.

I concur with the majority but emphasize that while the First Amendment is implicated when a person is forced to subsidize speech to which they object, such a compelled subsidy is permissible when it is ancillary to a valid cooperative endeavor. This case raises the open question of whether such compulsion is constitutional when nothing more than commercial advertising is at stake. The interest in making one entrepreneur finance advertising for the benefit of his competitors is insufficient to justify this compelled subsidy.

I concur with the majority and reiterate that paying money for advertising involves speech, and compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech. Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.

United States v. United Foods, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot