Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association

Media Items
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Edwin S. Kneedler (argued the cause for Petitioners in 10-1164)
Laurence H. Tribe (argued the cause for Respondents)
Gregory G. Garre (argued the cause for Petitioners in 03-1165)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
03-1164
Petitioner: 
Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.
Respondent: 
Livestock Marketing Association; Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc. v. Livestock Marketing Association
Consolidation: 
Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc. et al. v. Livestock Marketing Association, et al., No. 03-1165
Opinion: 
544 U.S. 550 (2005)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association , 544 U.S. 550 (2005)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1164)
Facts of the Case: 

The Beef Promotion and Research Act (1985) required cattle producers to pay a fee for generic beef advertisements done on behalf of the cattle industry. Some cattle producers disagreed with the advertisements. The Livestock Marketing Association sued the Department of Agriculture (DEA) in federal district court and alleged a government-required fee for advertising with which some cattle producers disagreed violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The DEA argued the advertising was government speech immune from First Amendment challenge. Another group of cattle producers, the Nebraska Cattlemen, sided with the DEA and sued the Livestock Marketing Association. The two cases were consolidated. The district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the program violated the First Amendment and that the advertising was compelled and not government speech.

Question: 

Does the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act) violate the First Amendment by requiring cattle producers to pay to fund advertising with which they disagree?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the fund was for government speech and that therefore the government could not be sued under the First Amendment. The Court pointed to the rule that while compelled funding of private speech raises First Amendment concerns, compelled funding of government speech generally does not.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Johanns, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Wrote a dissent, joined Souter's dissent
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence
Thomas
Wrote a special concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court