Montana federal judge backs beef-checkoff rules
By The Associated Press
11.04.02
Printer-friendly page
BILLINGS, Mont. — A federal judge has ruled that the national fee that beef producers must pay is constitutional, even as similar programs have been struck down by federal judges in other parts of the country.
The Nov. 1 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull came in the case of Steve and Jeanne Charter, a Montana ranching couple. The Charters did not pay the mandatory $1-per-head tax on some of the cattle they sold and faced more than $12,000 in penalties and past charges.
The Charters argued the checkoff violated their rights as independent producers by forcing them to pay for advertising campaigns with which they did not necessarily agree.
Cebull disagreed.
While he upheld the constitutionality of the fee, Cebull dismissed the fines against the Charters, saying the couple should not be penalized financially for challenging the legality of the fee. They must, however, pay past-due charges of about $420.
Jeanne Charter said that Cebull's decision would be appealed.
Congress first approved the checkoff program; the industry later voted it in. Each year, the checkoff raises about $80 million for beef promotion, consumer education and research.
Half the money collected annually goes to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board and half to qualified state beef councils. It financed the popular "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" campaign.
In South Dakota, another federal judge, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann, ruled earlier this summer that the checkoff program was unconstitutional, and ordered the USDA to halt collections. His decision was appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which issued a stay.
Cebull's Nov. 1 decision also is certain to be appealed &151; this time to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
On Oct. 25, a federal judge in Michigan declared the U.S. Department of Agriculture's pork-checkoff program "unconstitutional and rotten," ordering an end to the fee that funds a pork-promotion program.
U.S. District Judge Richard A. Enslen said that program violated hog farmers' First Amendment free-speech and association rights.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court voided a checkoff program for mushrooms as unconstitutional in U.S. v. United Foods.
But the high court upheld such a program for fruit trees in Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc.
Previous
Montana ranch couple challenges beef-promotion fee
Steve and Jeanne Charter say they should not be forced to pay for 'Beef. It's What's for Dinner' ads, other activities.
12.18.00
Related
Federal appeals court stomps on mandatory grape ads
9th Circuit finds generic campaign for California table grapes violates growers' free-speech rights.
01.28.03
Pork-checkoff program ruled 'unconstitutional, rotten'
Federal judge orders collections of mandatory fees for ads and promotion stopped.
10.29.02
Court rulings put mandatory ad campaigns in jeopardy
Analysis Recent federal decisions striking down beef, mushroom promotions could signal legal trouble for other farmer-funded programs.
07.02.02
