00-276 United States v. United Foods, Inc.

Listen to this article

“The features of the marketing scheme found important in Glickman are not present in the case now before us. As respondent notes, and as the Government does not contest …, almost all of the funds collected under the mandatory assessments are for one purpose: generic advertising. Beyond the collection and disbursement of advertising funds, there are no marketing orders that regulate how mushrooms may be produced and sold, no exemption from the antitrust laws, and nothing preventing individual producers from making their own marketing decisions. As the Court of Appeals recognized, there is no ‘heavy regulation through marketing orders’ in the mushroom market. 197 F.3d, at 225. Mushroom producers are not forced to associate as a group which makes cooperative decisions. ‘[T]he mushroom growing business … is unregulated, except for the enforcement of a regional mushroom advertising program,’ and ‘the mushroom market has not been collectivized, exempted from antitrust laws, subjected to a uniform price, or otherwise subsidized through price supports or restrictions on supply.’ Id., at 222, 223.

“It is true that the party who protests the assessment here is required simply to support speech by others, not to utter the speech itself. We conclude, however, that the mandated support is contrary to the First Amendment principles set forth in cases involving expression by groups which include persons who object to the speech, but who, nevertheless, must remain members of the group by law or necessity.”

Affirmed.

Local Effect:

The Seventh Circuit has not previously considered the issue.

Kennedy, J.; Stevens, J., concurring; Thomas, J., concurring; Breyer, J., dissenting.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 197 F.3d 221.