In the case of Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., et al., 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory marketing orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture did not violate the First Amendment rights of fruit growers and handlers in California. These orders required them to contribute funds for generic advertising campaigns promoting their products as a whole rather than individual brands or companies. The court held that these regulations were part of a broader collective scheme established by Congress to stabilize markets for agricultural commodities and thus did not infringe on free speech protections because they didn't compel any particular political or ideological viewpoint but simply facilitated traditional government functions related to economic regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al., 1996, Justice David Souter argued that the mandatory assessments used to fund generic advertising under a federal marketing order should be considered a violation of First Amendment rights. He contended that these assessments were essentially forcing some growers and handlers to subsidize speech with which they disagreed. According to him, this was not substantially different from other cases where the court had found compelled subsidies for others' speech objectionable. Therefore, he believed such orders should be subjected to scrutiny under the First Amendment and could only be upheld if they served a compelling state interest in a narrowly tailored way - criteria he did not believe were met in this case.