Inc. Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott
Dan Glickman, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., et al.
That the monetary assessments required by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 for generic advertising did not violate the First Amendment and should be allowed to stand.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Thomas E. Campagne
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court)
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
Date of Decision
25 June 1997
The Court held that the requirement to contribute to generic advertising did not violate the freedoms of speech or belief protected by the First Amendment.
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).
- Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
- Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990).
- First Amendment Center. http://www.fac.org.
- "Government-Compelled Fruit Advertising not in Violation of First Amendment." Business Wire, 25 June 1997.
- Greenhouse, Linda. "Agricultural Marketing Effort is Constitutional, Court Says." New York Times, 26 June 1997, p. C25.
- "PFAW: The Supreme Court in Review." M2 Presswire, 30 June 1997.
- Hopwood v. Texas - Significance, Denied Admission, Millions In Damages, The Terms Of The Complaint, The Former Policy
- Gabriel Gomez Trial: 2000 - Victim's Half-brother Arrested, Circumstantial Evidence Weighed, Gomez Reveals Burial Site, Suggestions For Further Reading
- Inc. Glickman v. Wileman Brothers Elliott - Significance
- Other Free Encyclopedias