Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Checkoff Decisions

Wild Rice Growers Failed to Show
Constitutional Violation

Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In J.W. DeWit Farms, Inc., v. Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council, 393 F. Supp. 2d 847 (D. Minn. 2005), the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment after it found the plaintiffs failed to show a First Amendment violation with regard to activities conducted by the Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council (“Council”). The Council was formed “to generate funds equitably from cultivated wild rice…producers for the establishment of a program for promotion, advertising, production, market research and market development to benefit the Minnesota cultivated wild rice industry in the growing, processing, distributing, sale and handling of its product….” Id at 849. Sixty-five percent of the Council’s budget is funded by state and federal grants, with the balance raised through private donations, royalties from the sale of seed, and a check-off fee charged to growers and importers on every pound of cultivated wild rice sold, stored, or delivered into Minnesota. Id. Citing United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001), the plaintiffs argued the Council violated their First Amendment rights by using check-off fees to fund speech-related activity such as advertising, promotional activities, research, and non-promotional activities. Id. at 849-850. The plaintiffs did not, however, present any evidence to show: (1) the advertising and promotional activities were actually funded with check-off fees, (2) they disagreed with the message conveyed by these activities, or (3) the research and non-promotional activities presented any sort of message at all, much less one with which they disagree. Id. at 851-852. Because the plaintiffs’ failed to submit evidence to support their claim, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Id. at 852.

The case was decided on March 14, 2005; this summary was posted Feb. 23, 2006.



 

This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-8201-9-115. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The National AgLaw Center is a federally funded research institution located at the University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville.

Web site: www.NationalAgLawCenter.org | Phone: (479)575-7646 | Email: NatAgLaw@uark.edu