# Opposition Brief — Michigan Pork Producers Ass'n v. Campaign for Family Farms > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1547%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2005 - **Citation:** 544 U.S. 1058 ## Text [one | @ @ | wmism Nos. 03-1180 and 03-1043 |_ OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ANN VENEMAN, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., ___ Petitioners, v. CAMPAIGN FOR FAMILY FARMS, ET AL. 5 MICHIGAN PORK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, Vv. CAMPAIGN FOR FAMILY FARMS, ET AL. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION _ Thomas C. Goldstein Susan E. Stokes Amy Howe Counsel of Record GOLDSTEIN & HOWE, P.C. David R. Moeller 4607 Asbury P!., NW Karen R. Krub Washington, DC 20016 FARMERS’ LEGAL ACTION GROUP, INC. 46 E. 4th Street, Suite 1301 St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 223-5400 April 19, 2004 NA RE GE TT TO WILSON-EPES PRINTING Co., INC. — (202) 789-0096 -— WASHINGTON, D. C. 20001 RULE 29.6 STATEMENT The Campaign for Family Farms is an unincorporated association. No parent or publicly owned corporation owns 10 percent or more of the stock of the Campaign for Family Farms. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW The United States petitioners in this case are Ann Veneman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Department of Agriculture. The private petitioners include the Michigan Pork Producers Association, Inc., California Pork Producers Association, Kentucky Pork Producers Association, Indiana Pork Producers Association, New York Pork Producers Cooperative, Inc., Ohio Pork Producers Council, High Lean Pork, Inc., Pete Blauwiekel, and Bob Bloomer. The respondents in this case are the Campaign for Family Farms, James Dale Joens, Richard Smith, Rhonda Perry, and Larry Ginter. The National Pork Producers Council was a party in the proceedings below. The United States’s petition erroneously listed the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board as a party to the proceeding in this case. iil - TABLE OF CONTENTS RAIEs CI AD OR PREENMIITD secsedexsssnsstsssecessicesnssessicevsssecesosnsassnss i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ...................... ii RPRRIE Ie GE GT MICE isoncssstsicraniseinssenscoscsencnssebuscensecnsorsacsne ili TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........sccccsssssssssosccsscsssccsssrsescccars Vv STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........csccssscsssossssscoscessccsoensooses l FT ciiivalireiatleviavinesduihicsnssaneseshinsianesscciarennencninnanadiads 10 I. This Court Should Not Grant Certiorari Because the Ruling Below Was Correct.............ssccsscesseeseees 12 A. The Pork Checkoff Is Not Government ID eicidesasicenieka sche eicaikasnnindoinccnlbncdieniesnkcowens 12 1. The Pork Checkoff Is a Private Self- A WPOIIIIIL, secssesscenssssnscevepsenssnsseovensens 13 2. The Pork Checkoff Is Privately PINS ssianinesbintdseaisdinibinpsitianenntivsdainieoidnnhasins 14 3. The Government Exercises Only Pro FOF OVOTSIBIL......c.sccesessraseseseorseesceseses 17 4. There Is No Conflict Among the Circuits Regarding the Application of the Government Speech Doctrine to Commodity Checkoffs.............sccsecceseees 18 B. The Pork Checkoff Is Unconstitutional Under Any Standard...............ccsecessressseeeeseees 18 1. Central Hudson Is Inapplicable............. 19 2. Even If Central Hudson Applied, There Would Be No Basis to Sustain SG IIIEE,, ‘ccs sicioscitpaindtsusanessavenbuarenianss 19 a. The Governmental Interest Is Not Substantial.....................sscccceees 20 b. The Pork Checkoff Does Not Directly Advance Any Asserted Governmental Interest.................... 21 iv c. The Pork Checkoff Is Far More Extensive Than Necessary to Serve Any Asserted Governmental Interest...............004 22 C. The Injunction Ordered by the District Court and Affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Is the Only Feasible Remedy. ................ceeseeeeeees 23 1. The Injunction Cannot Be Limited to Ps cicisssciccssnnsiinnnaninnassanibniecnsnts 23 2. The Injunction Cannot Be Limited to Promotional or Advertising Se csiteninciiiinintinrintasitinarninticinienes 25 II. This Court Should Deny Certiorari in Both the Present Case and in Veneman v. LMA, But If It Grants Certiorari in Either Case, It Should Grant ick icthlins pi ccstesiresedadelatesitisistencuipuacnningeisnininssdtinash 27 IN ia tkincsnnrnsnevesenntansinndsinaninicmneninbiominnsmeditisasinneeinin 30. Vv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977)...... 16, 26 Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (1987)............. 25 American Mining Cong. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 962 F. Supp. 2 (D.D.C. 1997)... eeeeseeeeees 24 Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971) uu... cecceeceeeeeeeeseeeeenes 24 Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, FA Etc BF CN ia iiaictiaciliis tablet iceceaieinsdiibentiotickt 15 Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987)... 25 Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) ......ccecsessseseeeees 24 Campaign for Family Farms v. Glickman, 200 F.3d SN ais IIE beings ctkcashathcndinsciobetedsabasouahindibanibadiinatn 4,25 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’ n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ...........ccccccscssesesceseseeees passim Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Fang ST Cs TBE CED wii biscicdsciinschstehsniphtcnsnsseninsictinnitbions 18 Cochran v. Veneman, 359 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004)....... passim Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941)... ceeesseeeeeeees 16 Decker v. O’ Donnell, 661 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1980)............. 24 Dimension Financial Corp. v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Res. Sys., 744 F.2d 1402 (10th Cir. 1984).......... 24 Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc.; 521 U.S. OF CEP ianiiiccvasticiss acunsnsctaiaiantassnihciaenaebianatiinentesibensaamaamnst passim Goetz v. Glickman, 525 U.S. 1102 (1999)... eeecsseteeeeeees 11 Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass'n v. United States, ae Sie Fe eich inienceh sneiiiaccininshanccaasinananisiliinacaiaeiaiiia 21 Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Sch., 487 U.S. 450 (1988)........ 16 Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U.S. 1 (1990)............... passim Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. SIA CF PID) scvisssiensinssravinieresasiscestmnsntnaviennenscssnineennbvetnsonnashie l4 vi Livestock Marketing Ass'n v. United States Department of Agriculture, 207 F. Supp. 2d 992 (IN ED.DED. TIDE) ninscvecisnicieennainiitiniensnbtastndbaninatanlamasiies 21, 28 Livestock Marketing Ass'n v. United States Department of Agriculture, 335 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2003), petitions for cert. filed (Feb. 13, 2004) (Nos. OS~1 166 came Bo FG pasisancseiciniscnncccleltientendiaiens 1, 11, 14, 20 Michigan Pork Producers Ass’n v. Campaign for Family Farms, 174 F. Supp. 2d 637 (W.D. Mich. LUTTE ) .cssvecensresnnesdtansseapitntendtaiieeinaaiiiegdaiandmcimdaiaiaieat 4,5 Pelts & Skins, LLC v. Landreneau, No. 03-30523, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6364 (Sth Cir. Apr. 2, 2004) passim Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 US. BED CG ase necsissiistissenesacibedanbetenlaaimaiinaiaidaialanndina 15 Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476 (1995) ..........008 22 Rust v. Sudlivan, SOO US. FES CGI icvevccsusuiciatamiststencatanis 15 United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119 (3d Cir. 1989), cert, damiad, FI US. HOGG Ci ivrecenivioieteissdentiinsetuiniasis 18 United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52 (1989)...........604 16 United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 CBIIG A ) ..xarsessnnsstarssarecerdiiiametealedieitiaiatasieamiaiiaaiass passim Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, No. 03-1164 (Fibed Froth. 13, ZI) vssacciscsctasciccsianeinitebneinmanteebiguaiemecrts 10 Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass’ n, 484 U.S. 383 (FB) arin snvcesnarcihniebnetenisnisdcsiebindinlinemiusebeaiimaias eee Constitutional Provisions UB. COMME, OUI sive csitsiisieininnticiieiciaitaaalipl cea cite ia eras l Statutes PRS Oe Femme mn aA eM ae Sirens Lhe snr . 13 T USAC. © GERRI DD sini ccvicctentiadbbsaneeosioa 25 F USAC. § SETA) anarsvcsessssavasennsionniiaenpemntuenienmabibgetalt 14, 15 FR. Se wid icin ticciuiaianlanateinseteichtndcncncicaeindmicecsanicaaie 14 FE he Rihatesnnthiccttiniicscccacinanestiakeinanss sibilannacabeni 26 Fees, I wiiintesnniticheitinesapiiintinasitanninabennaspiinnnidiae 13 Fe eies ED ciiensntehicenciiesbbicinsceetihonielbadlapliiiniebidaiaminaas 13 FRE FE eit este cscisnineinhdhceiienesdiaininelten 13 8 le, RON ONS FOE RON oar NONE Oe UM Maen 13 Rules Shi aioe ed schasiinn clan cheneeniaintaptbanbdiesaidamniasaacaasibeaaiiaaaimiadacnt 12 Se Maes ili TOE seas ttncieleassek Salcascsccaeitea ish ccsenbdisandacaeiialenediiaeadamadil 11 Regulations Fase RT © ascii eisicastceckciiaccdebtieaeadachiedsansh 24 F ee Oe Re FD iciscevsikanstebiasaitidesbubedcianantengpecdiinnianaiin 16 Fg lee Fae acaciniad tasteshdadacdaneapneenntinptiietsainamnaan 23 Legislative Materials OF) CCM, FRG er aii stetncaisccinshecnastessceeyninimiancsaptiede 13 H.R. Rep. No. 99-271, 99th Cong., Ist Sess. 190 (1985), reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1103 ........ eee 13 S. Rep. No. 99-145, 99th Cong., Ist Sess. 331 (1985), reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1676 .........ccscccsssseeessseeees 13 Other Authorities Agricultural Marketing Services News Release, USDA Approves Mushroom Program Assessment Reduction, No. 176-01 (Aug. 3, 2001), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/176-01 .htm ............ceeee 28 Agricultural Marketing Services News Release, USDA Approves Mushroom Program Assessment Increase, No. 281-02 (Nov. 6, 2002), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/28 1-02.HtM .........sceeeeee 28 Vill Agricultural Marketing Services News Release, USDA Approves Mushroom Program Assessment Increase, No. 291-01 (Dec. 4, 2001), available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/29 1-01 At ........ceeeeeees 28 Geoffrey S. Becker, Hog Prices: Questions and Answers, Congressional Research Service (updated Dec. 15, 1999), at http:// www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Agriculture/ IIE cithainiseniinsiccsdeiediaansniiaidicceninbhitieabuitiabibbansaniinmniios 3 Joseph W. Luter, III, To Our Shareholders, Smithfield Foods, Inc., 2000 Annual Report (July 7, 2000), available at http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/Investor/pdf/sfd_a Neil E. Harl, The Structural Transformation of Agriculture (Mar. 20, 2003), available at http://www.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/harl/StructuralT CUETICT biiscas tink ssa Sctncinsnitinnkshesucaisescccenasersvines 3 Rod Smith, ‘Clear Picture’ Emerging for Pork Producers; Choices and Opportunities Ahead Are ‘Staggering,’ Feedstuffs, Vol. 70, No. 44, Oct. 26, EIT sicswsssidiciensteistcsibencbitesillebdlaaahaleecetaihisthpien A Approves Mushroom Program Assessment Reduction, No. 176-01 (Aug. 3, 2001), at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/176-01.htm; USDA Approves Mushroom Program Assessment Increase, No. 291-01 (Dec. 4, 2001), at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/291-01.htm; USDA Approves Mushroom Program Assessment Increase, No. 281-02 (Nov. 6, 2002), at http://www.ams.usda.gov/news/28 1 -02.htm. 29 of the details of the programs funded by the pork checkoff, demonstrating why the different portions of the Pork Act are not severable and why everything funded by the pork checkoff is objectionable speech. Hearing both cases would allow the Court to render a ruling that would have broad applicability to all mandatory checkoff programs. Hearing two cases from two different agricultural industries would also provide the Court with the broader backdrop necessary to finally resolve the legal issues raised by petitioners’ argument that the case should be governed by the standard set forth in Central Hudson. Foe example, the government advances competing interests to justify the infringement on producers’ First Amendment rights in the beef checkoff and the pork checkoff under Central Hudson. If the Court were to address the level of constitutional inquiry to be applied to checkoff programs, it should have before it the different interests the government claims are advanced. This case contains a complete record of the programs funded by the pork checkoff and the objections to each of those programs, showing that the speech is not commercial, but ideological and political. Respondents’ objections to the pork checkoff and the programs it funds go to the very core of their values, engendering the “crisis of conscience” discussed by this Court in Wileman Bros. 521 U.S. at 472. The record in this case shows that the speech in this case is not just about advertising a product, or promoting a particular brand as opposed to the generic product. The programs and resulting speech generated by the pork checkoff support a system of agriculture that is anathema to those compelled to pay for them. Farming has never been just about commerce; it is a way of life. The polarization of views about the future of agriculture in this country is dramatically illustrated in the hog industry. Respondents believe that farming involves stewardship of the land and fostering healthy and vibrant rural communities. 30 The United States’s request to hold this case — with its clear record on the ideological and political nature of the speech and objections — is another example of the government’s litigation tactics of raising and then dropping arguments in order to delay the day when the last checkoff dollar is collected. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Thomas C. Goldstein Susan E. Stokes Amy Howe Counsel of Record GOLDSTEIN & Howe, P.C. David R. Moeller 4607 Asbury PI., NW Karen R. Krub Washington, DC 20016 FARMERS’ LEGAL ACTION GRoOvpP, INC. 46 E. 4th Street, Suite 1301 St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 223-5400 April 19, 2004'° 'S Counsel for respondents were principally assisted by Farmers’ Legal Action Group Staff Attomey Jess Anna Speier, and the following students in the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, supervised by Thomas C. Goldstein and Pamela S. Karlan: Michael P. Abate, Eric J. Feigin, and Daniel S. Goldman. Clinic members William B. Adams, David M. Cooper, Nicola J. Mrazek, and Jennifer J. Thomas also contributed. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_1547%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.