A Californian judge has ruled that the law establishing the California Table Grape Commission and authorising its programmes is constitutional.
A Federal District Court ruling from US District Court Judge Oliver Wanger rejected a First Amendment challenge to the commission’s programmes, because it concluded that the speech of the commission, a creation of the state legislature, is that of the government and therefore immune from constitutional challenge.
In addition, Judge Wanger reviewed the wide range of research, market access, issue management and education programmes conducted by the commission, and concluded that the commission’s advertising programme, which the plaintiffs alleged was unconstitutional, is part of the commission’s broader efforts to increase demand for California table grapes, and is therefore constitutional.
Commission president Kathleen Nave said: “This is an important victory for California’s fresh grape industry. Since 1967, the clear majority of California’s fresh grape farmers have voted every five years to continue funding the commission. This decision affirms their right to work together for the benefit of not just the entire industry, but the entire state of California.”
The commission is funded with assessments on each box of commercially produced grapes shipped in California. The ruling in favour of the commission is a critical decision in litigation that that began in autumn 1996.
Commission legal counsel Seth Waxman said: “Legally, the plaintiffs now have the right to appeal this decision and continue the litigation. As a practical matter, however, this is a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision that rules in the commission’s favour on multiple grounds.”
No comments yet