The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March 31^st in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the beef checkoff program identified with the popularly recognized "Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner" generic advertising campaign. Erik S. Jaffe presented oral argument on behalf of Jeanne and Steve Charter and hundreds of other independent cattle ranchers who oppose the per-head charge on cattle to pay for promoting beef consumption. Center’s counsel Reid A. Cox and Montana attorney Kelly J. Varnes co-represented the Charters before the Ninth Circuit.

In support of the argument that the checkoff program violates the First Amendment rights of the Charters and others who oppose being forced to support speech that is directly contrary to their views and interests, Mr. Jaffe confirmed to the court that "my clients vehemently disagree with the messages" and that "generic advertising undermines branded or specific advertising."

USDA lawyers tried to convince the court that the program is one that involves government speech because government officials are "calling the shots," a proposition that the court viewed with great skepticism during oral arguments. The government contends that because this is government speech, there are no First Amendment restrictions whatsoever. One of the judges expressed serious doubts that the members of the Beef Board were merely government puppets.

Calling for the Ninth Circuit to reverse and remand the case to the lower court, ordering the Beef Act to be ruled unconstitutional, Mr. Jaffe remarked that this court "should be appalled by the depth of the big lie the government is willing to tell in trying to save this program." For years, the Act has been characterized before Congress and the cattle ranchers as a "self-help" program.

To download the audio file, click here (Windows Media Player required).