Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Sonny Perdue
 | This article needs to be updated. The reason given is: last update was from 2017. (January 2023) |
| R-CALF v Sonny Perdue | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the District of Montana |
| Full case name | Ranchers-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 |
| Defendants | Sonny Perdue and United States Department of Agriculture |
| Plaintiffs | Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Washington |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Brian Morris |
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]
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
[edit]In 2016 the United States Department of Agriculture rescinded regulations requiring Mexican and Canadian beef be marked as imported.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).
Developments
[edit]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 2017, the court stayed further proceedings until the Ninth District Court of Appeals rules on the USDA appeal.[3]
References
[edit]- ^ a b "Order" (PDF). D. Mont. June 21, 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
- ^ "Complaint" (PDF). E.D. Wash. June 19, 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
- ^ "Docket 52". District Court for the District of Montana. Retrieved 25 September 2017.
 | This article needs additional or more specific categories. (January 2023) |