Livestock Marketing Association , U.

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn. :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

But before addressing Johanns , I think it is worth mentioning that shortly after University of Wisconsin v. Southworth , U. Velazquez , U. Writing for the Court including Justice Souter , Justice Kennedy explained and then distinguished Rust:. The Court in Rust did not place explicit reliance on the rationale that the counseling activities of the doctors under Title X amounted to government speech; when interpreting the holding in later cases, however, we have explained Rust on this understanding.

However, according to the Court , not every government subsidy creates a government speech scenario. Where, as in Legal Services Corporation , government subsidized individuals and groups for the purpose of soliciting a diversity of views, then forum analysis is appropriate just as it was in Rosenberger.

In the course of its opinion, the Court also emphasized the distorting effects of the funding condition on the adversary system and the legal process. For these reasons, the statute violated the First Amendment. Livestock Marketing Association, handed down in , generated important doctrinal developments in government speech doctrine.

Johanns was very similar factually to an earlier case, United States v. United Foods , U.

But, unlike in United Foods, in Johanns the government argued that the advertisements were government speech since the Secretary of Agriculture exercised final control over the message. Johanns presented the Court with its first real opportunity to consider the free speech implications of the government speech doctrine when it involved compelled speech. The Court held that the federal statute authorizing the speech, accompanied by government control of the message, rendered the advertisement government speech.

As a result, the compelled nature of the speech did not make a significant difference in the analysis because government has the right to tax and spend. Furthermore, it did not matter for First Amendment purposes whether the speech was facilitated through a general tax or through a targeted assessment.

Justice Souter dissented on the ground that this was not an instance of government speech at all.

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association | Casebriefs

The First Amendment focus should be neither on whether government stated that the speech was government speech, nor on government control of the speech. Rather, it should be on whether a reasonable observer viewed it as government speech. In Johanns , there was no way for a reasonable observer to know that it was the government speaking. Here the government would be advancing seemingly contradictory messages if the advertisement constituted government speech.

The primary justification for exempting government speech from First Amendment scrutiny is that the political process keeps the speech in check.

Justice Souter then went on to offer a philosophical grounding of his own for the government speech doctrine. Citing the dissenting opinion of Justice Holmes , joined by Justice Brandeis , in Abrams v.

United States , U. Posted in Constitutional Law , First Amendment. Nahmod Law Government Speech and Justice Souter 6: Writing for the Court including Justice Souter , Justice Kennedy explained and then distinguished Rust: Livestock Marketing Association Johanns v. Next The next two posts on government speech conclude this series. Written by snahmod November 10, at Animal Cruelty, Crush Videos and U.

Faculty Biography Selected Works.