Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., et al. (521 U.S. 457)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 25, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 521 U.S. 457 · 117 S. Ct. 2130
- Decided
- June 25, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. A number of growers, handlers, and processors of California tree fruits (respondents) brought this proceeding to challenge the validity of various regulations contained in marketing orders promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The orders impose assessments on respondents that cover the expenses of administering the orders, including the cost of generic advertising of California nectarines, plums, and peaches. The question presented to us is whether the requirement that respondents finance such generic advertising is a law “abridging the freedom of speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment. I Congress enacted the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246, as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq., in order to establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions and fair prices for agricultural commodities. § 602(1). Marketing orders promulgated pursuant to the AMAA are a species of economic regulation that has displaced competition in a number of discrete markets; they are expressly exempted from the antitrust laws. § 608b. Collective action, rather than the aggregate consequences of independent competitive choices, characterizes these regulated markets. In order “to avoid unreasonable fluctuations in supplies and prices,” § 602(4), these orders may include mechanisms that provide a…
Excerpt of a 35,666-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.