Court Opinion

ID: 9434797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:56:10.098163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:54.580659
License: Public Domain

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 Government conveys in its own name. See, e. g., U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Dietary Guidelines *570for Americans 2005, pp. 69, 30, available at http://www. health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/ (as visited May 18,2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (noting that “[tjrans fatty acids . . . are present in foods that come from ruminant animals (e. g., cattle and sheep)” and recommending that Americans “[ljimit intake of fats and oils high in saturated and/or trans fatty acids”); post, at 578, 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.