Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 120 S. Ct. 483 (1999).

Amelkin v. McLure, 168 F.3d 893 (6th Cir. 1999).

Rhode Island Ass'n of Realtors v. Whitehouse, 199 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1999).

The prospect of using public records for commercial purposes is decidedly bleak following a Supreme Court ruling that took many First Amendment advocates by surprise.

The Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of a California law that prohibits the release of information about arrestees for commercial uses. The Court said the law is "no more than an access restriction" and therefore does not infringe on First Amendment rights.

In Los Angeles Police Dept. v. United Re-porting Publishing Corp., the Court last December reversed the Ninth Circuit, which had struck the law because it failed to advance the government's interest in protecting the privacy of arrestees. The law allows the release of personal information for a host of noncommercial purposes, including newsgathering.

Justices Stevens and Kennedy dissented. The widespread exemptions in the law under-mine the government's privacy interests, Justice Stevens said.

One week later, the High Court vacated a Sixth Circuit decision in a similar case, Amelkin v. McLure, and ordered that court to reevaluate a Kentucky law in light of the United Reporting decision. The Kentucky statute prohibits the release of accident reports except for journalistic purposes -- a use the Sixth Circuit said was at odds with the government's interest in protecting the privacy of accident victims.

In the same month, however, the First Circuit struck a Rhode Island law that barred the use of public records for commercial purposes. A U.S. district court had found the law unconstitutional, but the appellate court decision was limited to affirming the Realtors' standing to seek a declaratory judgment.

Mushrooms and Plums Are Like Apples and Oranges When It Comes to Compelled Speech, Sixth Circuit Says

Compelled advertising programs for agricultural products have hovered beyond the reach of commercial speech protection since the Supreme Court's 1997 Wileman ruling.

In that decision the Court said generic advertising funded by California fruit growers subject to government marketing orders did not constitute compelled speech, but was merely an aspect of broader economic regulation.

Last November, however, the Sixth Circuit took pains to distance itself from that interpretation. In United Foods, Inc. v. United States, the court ruled that mushroom growers could not be forced to finance a national mushroom ad campaign under the Mushroom Promotion, Re-search, and Consumer Information Act of 1990.

The court went to some length to distinguish what it called the "unregulated" mush-room business from the "collectivized California tree fruit business."

"The mushroom market has not been collectivized, exempted from antitrust laws, subjected to a uniform price, or otherwise subsidized through price supports or restrictions on supply," the Sixth Circuit said.

In such an unregulated environment, mandatory contributions to generic marketing efforts amount to compelled speech, the court concluded.

In contrast, California's Ninth Circuit reached Wileman-like decisions upholding the generic advertising requirements of government marketing orders for milk and almond producers.

Oral Argument Slated in Justice Dept. Tobacco Suit

Oral argument is scheduled for June 2 in the Justice Department's multi-billion-dollar law-suit against the tobacco industry. The industry filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 27 to dismiss the suit. The government filed a reply Feb. 25 in opposition, followed by an industry response March 27. An industry settlement could include severe restrictions on tobacco advertising.

Meanwhile, the threat of an FDA-imposed ban on tobacco ads faded March 21 when the Supreme Court ruled in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. that the Food and Drug Administration does not possess statutory authority to regulate tobacco products as drugs or medical devices.

United Foods, Inc. v. United States, 197 F.3d 221 (6th Cir. 1999).

Gallo Cattle Co. v. California Milk Advisory Bd., 185 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 1999).

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 192 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 1999).