Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCompelled SpeechEconomic RegulationCommercial SpeechFirst Amendmentcompelled subsidygeneric advertising

Facts

Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the Secretary of Agriculture issued marketing orders regulating California nectarines, plums, and peaches. Those orders displaced aspects of ordinary competition and required handlers to pay assessments covering administration, inspection, research, and generic advertising promoting "California Summer Fruits." Respondent Wileman Bros. & Elliott and other handlers refused to pay certain assessments and challenged, among other things, the generic advertising provisions. The advertising was authorized as part of a broader collective marketing scheme intended to promote the producers' common economic interests.

Issue

Does requiring handlers subject to federal agricultural marketing orders to finance generic advertising for California nectarines, plums, and peaches abridge the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment? More specifically, should such assessments be subjected to heightened First Amendment scrutiny under Central Hudson?

Rule

When compelled financial contributions for generic advertising are imposed as part of a broader statutory program of collective economic regulation, and the scheme imposes no restraint on private expression, compels no actual or symbolic speech, and does not require support for political or ideological views, the First Amendment does not require heightened scrutiny. Such assessments are reviewed as economic regulation and enjoy the ordinary strong presumption of validity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado creates a statutory marketing order for western-slope cherries sold through Denver wholesalers. The order sets grade standards, limits weekly shipment volumes, requires standardized packaging, and funds inspections, research, and generic ads stating only, "Colorado Cherries: Fresh for Summer." Handler Nora Benton refuses to pay the advertising portion of the assessment, arguing the First Amendment requires heightened scrutiny.

How should a court most likely evaluate Nora's First Amendment challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that mandatory assessments funding generic advertising do not trigger heightened First Amendment scrutiny when they operate within a broader collectivized regulatory scheme and the program neither restrains private expression, compels actual or symbolic speech, nor funds political or ideological views. In that setting, the assessment is reviewed as economic regulation with a strong presumption of validity, not under heightened commercial-speech scrutiny.