Syllabus | Opinion [ Scalia ] | Concurrence [ Thomas ] | Concurrence [ Breyer ] | Concurrence [ Ginsburg ] | Dissent [ Kennedy ] | Dissent [ Souter ] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[May 23, 2005]
Justice Ginsburg, concurring in the judgment.
I resist ranking the promotional
messages funded under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of
1985, 7 U.S.C. §
2901 et seq., but not attributed to the
Government,
as government speech, given the message the
Govern-
ment conveys in its own name. See, e.g.,
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005, pp.
69, 30, available at
http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines/
dga2005/docume
nt (as visited May 18, 2005, and available in Clerk of
Courts case file) (noting that [t]rans fatty
acids
are present in foods that come from ruminant
animals (e.g., cattle and sheep) and recommending
that Americans [l]imit intake of fats and oils high in
saturated and/or trans fatty acids); post,
at 9, n. 7 (Souter, J., dissenting). I remain persuaded,
however, that the assessments in these cases, as in United
States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001),
and Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc.,
521 U.S. 457
(1997), qualify as permissible economic regulation. See
United Foods, 533 U.S., at 425 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
For that reason, I concur in the judgment.