October Term 2000 · Docket 00-276
Do mandatory industry assessments violate free speech?
Mushroom producers challenge mandatory fees for government marketing programs.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The government argued the fees do not abridge speech.
The producers argued the fees compel unwanted speech.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 1-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether forced funding of speech violates the First Amendment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
The government seeks to keep the mandatory fees in place.
The producers seek to strike down the mandatory fees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What each side says
The government argues the fees do not abridge speech rights.
The producers argue the fees compel unwanted speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 1-3
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of compelled funding for commercial speech.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 1-3
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.