Supreme Court Upholds Fees for Beef Ads

The well-known ad campaigns for farm products -- including “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” and “Got Milk?” -- won a reprieve Monday when the Supreme Court ruled that farmers and ranchers could be forced to pay for these government-sponsored promotions.

In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected a free-speech challenge brought by dissident ranchers who objected to paying for the ads.

The ruling is likely to sweep aside legal challenges to dozens of similar promotional programs, many run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and others sponsored by states, including California.

The programs began in the 1930s during the Depression, when the government sought to help farmers by increasing demand for their products. In recent decades, lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento have created new marketing programs to advertise and promote farm products.

The federal effort includes campaigns for cotton, potatoes, peanuts and eggs. California has programs for nectarines, almonds, olives and table grapes. Its “dancing raisins” ad campaign was one of the most popular.

The producers of the goods pay for the ads. Cattle ranchers, for example, are assessed $1 per head of cattle sold, and the money funds the ads promoting beef.

Until Monday, the programs were under steady legal attack by cattlemen and farmers who said they should not be forced by the government to pay for messages they opposed. Some ranchers said their animals were organically fed or ranged freely, and they resented the implicit message of the ads that all beef was the same.

Their lawyers relied on Thomas Jefferson’s comment that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”

Four years ago, the Supreme Court agreed with that 1st Amendment complaint and struck down a federal marketing program for mushrooms as unconstitutional. Since then, lower courts have struck down a series of farm promotional programs, including the “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” campaign and the dairy industry’s “Got Milk?”

But the Supreme Court reversed course Monday and ruled that because the programs were run by the government, they could collect money from those who benefited from them.

Justice Antonin Scalia compared the fees to taxes. “Compelled support of government -- even those programs of government one does not approve -- is of course perfectly constitutional, as every taxpayer must attest,” he said. “And some government programs involve, or entirely consist of, advocating a position.”

The beef promotional program was created by Congress in 1985. The secretary of Agriculture appoints the members of the Beef Board, who in turn create the ads.

“The message of the promotional campaigns is effectively controlled by the federal government itself,” said Scalia, even though the ads say “Funded by America’s Beef Producers.”

In the past, the Supreme Court has said that public school teachers may not be forced to pay union dues that are used for political contributions. This is different, Scalia said, because the union is a private entity, not the government.

His opinion rejecting the free-speech argument against the beef program was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion but did not join in the majority opinion.

The case was Johanns vs. the Livestock Marketing Assn.

Farm industry leaders said they expected the ruling would clear away the other pending legal challenges.

“This is a very strong opinion and it’s overwhelmingly positive for ranchers throughout this state,” said Ben Higgins, executive vice president of the California Cattlemen’s Assn. in Sacramento.

California Deputy Atty. Gen. Linda Berg said the state had been defending its farm promotional programs in several court battles. “I’m elated. This will be very helpful for our programs in California,” she said.

In other action, the court dismissed a high-profile case involving Mexican nationals on death row in the United States and separately ruled that convicted murderers could not be routinely shackled during their sentencing hearings.

The move in the Mexicans’ case was not a surprise. When a case from Texas was before the high court earlier this year, President Bush said the Texas courts should give Mexican nationals a new hearing in state court. That followed a ruling by the International Court of Justice at The Hague, which sided with Mexico and said U.S. officials had failed to inform the nationals of their rights.

The Supreme Court said Monday that it would put off a ruling on the issue until the Texas courts had ruled on Bush’s order. The case, Medellin vs. Dretke, is almost certain to return later.

In the shackling case, the court said in a 7-2 ruling that prisoners could not be held in leg irons and handcuffs in the courtroom unless the judge believed there was a threat to safety. Thomas and Scalia dissented.