Charter v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 02-36140.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-36140.,02-36140. |
| Citation | 412 F.3d 1017 |
| Parties | Jeanne CHARTER; Steve Charter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant-Appellee, Charles M. Rein; James E. Courtney; Randall P. Smith; Ed Lord; George Hammond; John Swanz; Keith Bales; Keystone Ranches, Inc.; Simplot Livestock Co.; Agri Beef Company; John R. Wilson; David True; Lyle Gray, Defendant-Intervenors Appellees, v. Darrell Abbott; Dave J. Able; Louise Ahart; Irv Alderson; Jess Alger; Justin Baisch; Shana Baisch; William P. Bandel; Joseph J. Barrett; Dominic Begger; John Benson; Earl Berlier; Wade Beruer; Reg Billing; Robert Bomhoff; James H. Bowers; David E. Bowman; Ceabrian Ranch, Inc; Mike Callicrate; Don H. Chafee; Bill Christison; Lee D. Clark, Jr.; Leah R. Cole; C.M. Coffee; Jerry Cossitt; Audrey Cox; Conrad L. Cox; Geral L. Cox; Robert Cox; Arthur Daniel; Brett Debruycker; Kay Debruycker; Lloyd Debruycker; David Deechant; Grant Dobbs; Mabel E. Dobbs; Les Duffner; John Dyer; Richard Eiguren Family Limited Partnership; Ronald Ferster; Peggy Ferster; Naomi Fink; Mark Fix; Alan Folda; Glenn Follmer; John Gaynor; Rick Golder; Richard Gosman; Ben W. Green; Bizz Green; Grant Greiman; Barr Gustafson; Doug Harrison; Gladys Harrison; Bert Hammond; Arlenee Hammond; Joseph Hanser; Jogn M. Heyneman; Gordon O. Hoberg; Stephen D. Hornady; Bill Huntsman; Evelyn W. Huntsman; Harry Humbert; Levi Jenkins; Carl R. Johnson; Fred H. Johnson; Vera-Beth Johnson; John E. Kelly; Kanara Ranch Co.; Noel Keogh; Art Kirby; John E. Kubesh; Peter J. Kuhr; Joseph T. Kurowski; William R. McKay; Gary Dean Malone; Walt Manuel; Judie Manuel; Dennis McDonald; Donald C. McElligott; Douglas S. McRae; William D. McRae; Jerry Mobley; Malcolm Moore; Ed C. Mott; Munrion Livestock, Inc.; David Nelson; Donald Nelson; Jamie D. Oberling; Jim Patrick; Margaretta Patrick; Ellen L. Pfister; Ronald E. Popekla; Robert G. Powell; Prairie Elk Trust; Elmer Quanbeck; Lyle Quick; Lincoln Reinhiller; Linda Rauser; Elwood Rave; William H. Rettig; Wayne Rolf; Melissa, Rolf; Rossetter Limited Partnership; Russell Salisbury; Michael L. Schultz; Jack Seymour; David Shipman; Helen J. Shipman; Jerry Skinner; Lester Sluggett; Carol Sluggett; Michael Smith; Elaine Smith; Paul B. Smith; Jean K. Spannagel; James Stampfel; Gilles Stockton; Clair K. Streeter; Neil Strozzi; Glen M. Sylvester; Matt Thielen; Jay Tope; Marjories Townsend; Robert L. Trainer; Hugo Tureck; Judy Tureck; Joseph Verlanic; Harold E. Waller; Johnna Lee Williams; Brett Winderl; Monika Winderl; Charler Yarger; Alternative Energy Resources Organization; Intertribal Argriculture, Council; Dakota Resource Council; North Dakota Farmers for Profitable Agriculture; Northern Plains Resource Council; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Astro Sales International, Inc.; Austral Foods, Inc.; The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenors-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Kelly J. Varnes, Hendrickson, Everson, Noennig & Woodward, P.C., Billings, Montana; Erik S. Jaffe, Erik S. Jaffe, P.C., Washington, D.C.; and Renee L. Giachino and Reid Alan Cox, Center for Individual Freedom, Alexandria, Virginia, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; William M. Mercer, United States Attorney; and Douglas N. Letter and Matthew M. Collette, Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee.
Richard T. Rossier and Alex Menendez, McLeod, Watkinson & Miller, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-intervenors-appellees.
Patricia D. Peterman and James A. Patten, Patten, Peterman, Bekkendahl & Green, PLLC, Billings, Montana, for the plaintiff-intervenors-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00198-RCB.
Before: CANBY, WARDLAW, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This is a challenge to the constitutionality of the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 ("the Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2901-11, and the Beef Promotion and Research Order promulgated thereunder, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1260.101-1260.640. The district court entered judgment in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture, holding that the speech at issue is government speech and thus the Act does not violate either the appellants' free speech or association rights. Charter v. USDA, 230 F.Supp.2d 1121 (D.Mont.2002). We heard argument and submitted the appeal for decision on March 31, 2004. When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2055, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005), we vacated submission pending the outcome in Johanns because the parties here challenged the Act on grounds identical to those asserted in Johanns. We now order the appeal resubmitted for decision.
In Johanns, the Supreme Court, like the district court here, first held that the speech at issue is "from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government," i.e., the Government's own speech. Id. at ___, 125 S.Ct. at 2061. Further, because the beef "checkoff" program promulgated under the Act funds the Government's own speech, the Court held that the Act is not susceptible to a facial First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge. Id. at ___-___, 125 S.Ct. at 2061-64. The Court nevertheless stated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Shewry, 03-16535.
...text to actual tobacco executives. We also find inapposite the dissent's analogy to our recent order in Charter v. United States Department of Agriculture, 412 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir.2005). We remanded on the question of attribution in that case because the record indicated that the National Ca......