stating that, even if commercial speech is less protected than other speech, there is "no basis under either Glickman or our other precedents to sustain the compelled assessments,” but refusing to consider "whether the Government's interest could be considered substantial for purposes of the Central Hudson test”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, even if commercial speech is less protected than other speech, there is "no basis under either Glickman or our other precedents to sustain the compelled assessments,” but refusing to consider "whether the Government's interest could be considered substantial for purposes of the Central Hudson test”
- holding that the First Amendment “may prevent the government from compelling individuals to express certain views or from compelling certain individuals to pay subsidies for speech to which they object.”
- holding that regulations forcing mushroom producers to fund generic advertising violated the First Amendment, even though they "[did] not compel the expression of political or ideological views”
- holding that a mandatory assessment imposed on mushroom producers to support advertising promoting general mushroom sales violated the producer’s First Amendment right against compelled speech
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Livestock Marketing Association v. United States Department Of Agriculture, 335 F.3d 711 (2003)
However, we disagree with the district court's reasoning because it fails to account for the more recent pronouncements in United Foods.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Jerry Beeman & Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, 652 F.3d 1085 (2011)
Notably, as a matter of state law, the ARP decision expressly distinguishes Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550, 125 S.Ct. 2055, 161 L.Ed.2d 896 (2005), a compelled subsidy case that followed United Foods, and holds that it is inapposite because “the issue [before the court] is compelled speech by drug processors, not compelled subsidy of government speech.” 42 Cal.Rptr.3d at 262.
Distinguished by Beeman v. ANTHEM PRESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT, LLC, 661 F.3d 1199 (2011)
[21] Notably, as a matter of state law, the ARP decision expressly distinguishes Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550, 125 S.Ct. 2055, 161 L.Ed.2d 896 (2005), a compelled subsidy case that followed United Foods, and holds that it is inapposite because "the issue [before the court] is compelled speech by drug processors, not compelled subsidy of government speech." 42 Cal. Rptr.3d at 262.
The opinion
Justice Thomas,
concurring.
I agree with the Court that Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U. S. 457 (1997), is not controlling. I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that “paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech,” and that “compelling speech raises a First Amend *419 ment issue just as much as restricting speech.” Id., at 504 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.