NPPC Asks for Court Ruling on Checkoff

July 24, 2001

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the Michigan Pork Producers Association (MPPA) have requested that a federal district judge determine the constitutionality of the pork checkoff in addition to ruling on the legality of the settlement agreement between NPPC and USDA. The supplemental complaint was filed Friday in the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan.

"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the mushroom checkoff case, we believe it is both pertinent and an efficient use of the court's resources to settle the constitutional question now," said NPPC President Barb Determan, a pork producer from Early, IA.

In the case of United States v United Foods, the U.S. Supreme Court June 25 ruled that the assessments on handlers of fresh mushrooms to pay for generic mushroom advertising violated the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Previously, in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., the high court upheld mandatory assessments on California tree fruit producers against a First Amendment challenge. In United Foods, the Court reaffirmed Wileman but distinguished it. The United Foods Court also failed to reach the question whether the mushroom promotion program could be defended as "government speech," holding that the government had waived that argument.

In its supplemental filing, the two pork producer groups have asked the court to declare that the Secretary of Agriculture acted within her discretion and authority in entering into a settlement agreement continuing the pork checkoff program and further to declare that the pork checkoff program does not violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They have also asked for an accelerated hearing on the pending questions.