Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue

Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue (No. 4:16-cv-00041-BMM) is a case in which plaintiffs allege that checkoff dollars are being used to support Canadian and Mexican beef. Checkoffs are mandatory contributions, from beef producers in this case, which are used for generic industry advertising and research.[1]

R-CALF v Sonny Perdue
United States District Court for the District of Montana
Full case nameRanchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund
United Stockgrowers of Washington v.
Sonny Perdue in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture and
United States Department of Agriculture
Judge sittingBrian Morris
Plaintiff(s)Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund
United Stockgrowers of Washington
Defendant(s)Sonny Perdue and
United States Department of Agriculture

This case is distinguished from Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. USDA (No. 2:17-cv-00223), a challenge to USDA rules that allow Mexican and Canadian beef to be labelled as domestic beef. [2]

Facts and prior history

In 2016 the United States Department of Agriculture rescinded regulations requiring Mexican and Canadian beef be marked as imported. Checkoff advertising does not distinguish between domestic and imported beef. Plaintiff disagrees with advertising that promotes imported beef to its detriment. It claims compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. This matter had been addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005).

Latest developments and next steps

In June 2017, the court issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the Montana Beef Board from using beef producers' checkoff contributions for advertising, unless the producers approve in advance.[1] The decision hung on the distinction between commercial speech and government speech. Compelled commercial speech is a First Amendment violation. This is in contraposition to Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005).

In September, the court stayed further proceedings until the Ninth District Court of Appeals rules on the USDA appeal.[3]

gollark: Technically no. Memory is finite.
gollark: Quick, everyone read an extremely complex maths book on nonstandard analysis.
gollark: Clearly we should standardize on a good definition of infinite things here?!
gollark: Hyperbolic tilings and other exotic geometry?
gollark: IBM Business Machines™.

References
  1. "Order" (PDF). D. Mont. June 21, 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  2. "Complaint" (PDF). E.D. Wash. June 19, 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  3. "Docket 52". District Court for the District of Montana. Retrieved 25 September 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.