No. 03-1164In the Supreme Court of the United StatesANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,ET AL., PETITIONERSv.LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION, ET AL.ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARITO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUITREPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERSTHEODORE B. OLSONSolicitor GeneralCounsel of RecordDepartment of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20530-0001(202)-514-2217(I)TABLE OF CONTENTSPageA. Review is warranted to decide whether the BeefAct is constitutional under the government speechdoctrine .................................................................................... 1B. Review is warranted to resolve the questionwhether the Beef Act is constitutional underthe commercial speech doctrine .......................................... 8C. Review is warranted on the scope of the remedy ........... 9TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases:Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) .....7, 8, 9Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678(1987) ........................................................................................10Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217(2000) ........................................................................................4, 7Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv.Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ..............................................9Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliot, Inc.,521 U.S. 457 (1997) ................................................................7, 8Keller v. State Bar, 496 U.S. 1 (1990) ...............................3, 7, 8Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S.374 (1995) .................................................................................5Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533(2001) ........................................................................................6Rosenberger v. Rector & Vistors of Univ. of Va.,515 U.S. 819 (1995) ................................................................6Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) .................................6United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 (1965) .....................2United States v. United Foods, 533 U.S. 405(2001) ........................................................................................1, 8IICases—Continued: PageWest Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,319 U.S. 624 (1943) ................................................................7Wooley v. Maryland, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) .........................7Constitution and statutes:U.S. Const. Amend. I .........................................................5, 6, 8, 9Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C.2901 et seq. ...............................................................................17 U.S.C. 2901(a)(3) ............................................................37 U.S.C. 2901(a)(4) ............................................................37 U.S.C. 2902(13) ...............................................................37 U.S.C. 2904(1) .................................................................37 U.S.C. 2904(4)(C) ...........................................................37 U.S.C. 2904(6)(B) ...........................................................3, 6Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Actof 1996, 7 U.S.C. 7401(b)(2) ..................................................5(1)In the Supreme Court of the United StatesNo. 03-1164ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,ET AL., PETITIONERSv.LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION, ET AL.ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARITO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUITREPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERSA. Review Is Warranted To Decide Whether The Beef ActIs Constitutional Under The Government SpeechDoctrine1. Respondents contend that review is unwarrantedin this case because the court of appeals’ invalidationof the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (BeefAct), 7 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., was “pre-ordained” by thisCourt’s decision in United States v. United Foods, Inc.,533 U.S. 405 (2001). Br. in Opp. 2. In United Foods,however, the Court expressly refrained from decidingwhether a similar generic advertising program involvedgovernment speech because that issue was not raised oraddressed in the court of appeals. 533 U.S. at 416-417.In contrast, the government relied on the governmentspeech doctrine to defend the Beef Act in in this caseand the court of appeals expressly resolved that issue,holding that the government speech doctrine does not2support the constitutionality of the Beef Act. Pet. App.11a-18a. The government speech issue is thereforesquarely presented here, and nothing in United Foodsaddresses, much less preordains, the proper resolutionof that issue.2. Nor does the absence of a circuit split on whetherthe Beef Act is constitutional under the governmentspeech doctrine lessen the need for this Court’s review.Br. in Opp. 17. The court of appeals in this case invali-dated an Act of Congress, Pet. App. 28a, and the invali-dation of an Act of Congress is itself an independentreason for this Court to grant review. See UnitedStates v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 65 (1965). Moreover, thegeneric advertising program under that Act of Con-gress has been in effect for more than 15 years and hasformed an integral part of the federal government’spromotion of beef, education of consumers, and stabili-zation of an important sector of the Nation’s economy.An appellate decision invalidating an Act of Congressand an important and longstanding program estab-lished under that Act should not be left unreviewed bythis Court.The government speech question presented in thiscase is also one of exceptional and recurring impor-tance. Congress has authorized, and the Secretary ofAgriculture has implemented, generic advertising ofseveral other agricultural commodities. See Pet. 23.The Court’s resolution of the government speech issuein this case will have a direct bearing on the consti-tutionality of those other programs. The States havealso established programs for generic advertising ofcommodities. Because of the importance of the ques-tion presented to them, thirty States and Puerto Ricohave filed an amicus brief urging the Court to grantreview.33. Respondents argue that the government speechdoctrine does not support the constitutionality of theBeef Act. Br. in Opp. 17-25. The Court should addressthat contention after it grants review, receives fullbriefing, and hears
View Full Document
Unlocking...