Where’s the Beef? Court Considers Challenge of Cattle Ad

WASHINGTON – A food fight broke out at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, with justices considering whether the government can force farmers to pay for ad campaigns with catchy phrases like “Beef: It’s what’s for dinner” and billboards featuring milk mustaches on celebrities.Farmers are challenging the multimillion-dollar beef-promotion program, saying they shouldn’t have to pay for ads they disagree with.The eventual ruling could jeopardize more than 100 federal and state campaigns for other products – eggs, mangoes, popcorn, and even alligators.The programs are billed as a way to help farmers of all sizes with generic ads, but they have faired poorly in courts. Lower courts have already struck down the “Got Milk?” dairy promotion, advertisements calling pork “the other white meat,” and the beef program.Attorney Gregory Garre, representing cattlemen who support the beef campaign, told justices the whole industry has benefited from increased exports to other countries and consumer education.“The part that’s good can’t save the whole thing,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “There is something offensive” about forcing farmers to pay for ads they do not support.Still, the court seemed divided on how to settle the case.“Every time we pay general taxes we’re supporting government speech we may not agree with,” Mr. Scalia said.Some justices also seemed concerned that a ruling against the government would hurt efforts to force cigarette makers to pay for ads warning about the dangers of smoking.“The ultimate beneficiary of the advertising is the consumer,” Bush administration lawyer Edwin Kneedler said, defending the beef campaign.He said the government believes that beef should be part of Americans’ diets, and formed the program to help small farmers who could not mount a national campaign on their own.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and several other court members appeared skeptical of claims that the beef program was government speech, giving the cattle farmers no right to challenge it. She said government public health experts would not encourage people to eat lots of red meat.Beef producers are required to pay a $1 a-head fee on cattle sold in America, which generates more than $80 million a year for ads, research, and educational programs on mad cow disease. Federal officials oversee how the money is spent.For every dollar they contribute in increased prices because of the program, producers get back $5.67, supporters contend.However, Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe, representing farmers who oppose the program, said the money never makes it to the 850,000 individual cattle producers. Instead, he said, restaurants, grocery stores, and slaughterhouses get the benefits.Mr. Tribe said the ad campaign is intended to help, but “the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.”The government was sued by ranchers who sell cattle in South Dakota and Montana. They won an appeals court ruling that found the 20-year-old program violated the First Amendment.The federal government and Nebraska cattlemen appealed to the high court, which has dealt before with questions about government authority to force farmers into joint programs.In 1997, the court upheld advertising programs for California fruit. But in 2001, justices struck down a mandatory campaign for the mushroom industry.The court has never decided, however, if such programs are government speech.Many groups and 34 states are supporting the government. Justices were told that in California alone, 48 mandatory programs are used to promote produce like grapes and lettuce.The cases are Veneman v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1164, and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association, 03-1165.

Where’s the Beef? Court Considers Challenge of Cattle Ad

Where’s the Beef? Court Considers Challenge of Cattle Ad

More from the New York Sun

Bipartisan Lawmakers Warn Israel’s Withholding of Palestinian Funds Risks Hamas, Iran Exploiting Economic Crisis in West Bank

Iranian Missile Strike Damages Nine American Warplanes as Trump Says He’s No Longer Seeking Deal With Tehran

The Ritual, Hierarchy, and Pranks of Prince George’s Boarding School Eton

China’s Grip on South China Sea, Claim to Taiwan Sure To Dominate Xi’s Summit With Trump

Company Says New Drug May Help Reverse the Clock on Aging

European Court Rejects Polygamous Refugee’s Effort To Bring Children From Second and Third Marriages to the Netherlands

Is Mayor Zohran Mamdani Competent To Run New York City?

Soviet Union’s Early Years Offer Disturbing Preview of DSA’s Agenda

More from the New York Sun

Bipartisan Lawmakers Warn Israel’s Withholding of Palestinian Funds Risks Hamas, Iran Exploiting Economic Crisis in West Bank

Iranian Missile Strike Damages Nine American Warplanes as Trump Says He’s No Longer Seeking Deal With Tehran

The Ritual, Hierarchy, and Pranks of Prince George’s Boarding School Eton

China’s Grip on South China Sea, Claim to Taiwan Sure To Dominate Xi’s Summit With Trump

Company Says New Drug May Help Reverse the Clock on Aging

European Court Rejects Polygamous Refugee’s Effort To Bring Children From Second and Third Marriages to the Netherlands

Is Mayor Zohran Mamdani Competent To Run New York City?

Soviet Union’s Early Years Offer Disturbing Preview of DSA’s Agenda