1 minute read

Inc. Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott



Dan Glickman, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture


Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., et al.

Petitioner's Claim

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

Walter Dellinger

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)

Justices Dissenting

William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas


Washington, D.C.

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.

Related Cases

  • 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).

Further Readings

  • 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.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1995 to Present