Pelts & Skins, LLC v. Landreneau

Fifth Circuit

Pelts & Skins, LLC v. Landreneau

448 F.3d 743, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11036, 2006 WL 1163855

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 3, 2006

Docket03-30523

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 448 F.3d 743 (Pelts & Skins, LLC v. Landreneau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pelts & Skins, LLC v. Landreneau, 448 F.3d 743, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11036, 2006 WL 1163855 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Our previous opinion in this case held that Louisiana’s alligator marketing program created an unconstitutional compelled subsidy for private speech. Since then, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying when marketing programs like the one at issue are government speech exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. See Johanns v. Livestock Mktg., Assoc., 544 U.S. 550, 125 S.Ct. 2055, 2063, 161 L.Ed.2d 896 (2005). Johanns held that the key inquiry is the “degree of governmental control over the message.” Id. Speech constitutes government speech when it is “effectively controlled” by the government. Id. at 2062.

Neither this Court, the district court, nor the parties had the benefit of this now-governing standard. At this time, we cannot apply the new standard, given that the record does not contain sufficient evidence *744 of control or lack thereof. Accordingly, we VACATE and REMAND for the district court to allow the parties to develop and present evidence with respect to the new standard and to allow the district court to assess in the first instance the extent of governmental control over the speech at issue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Our previous opinion in this case held that Louisiana’s alligator marketing program created an unconstitutional compelled subsidy for private speech. Since then, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion clarifying when marketing programs like the one at issue are government speech exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. See Johanns v. Livestock Mktg., Assoc., 544 U.S. 550, 125 S.Ct. 2055, 2063, 161 L.Ed.2d 896 (2005). Johanns held that the key inquiry is the “degree of governmental control over the message.” Id. Speech constitutes government speech when it is “effectively controlled” by the government. Id. at 2062.

Neither this Court, the district court, nor the parties had the benefit of this now-governing standard. At this time, we cannot apply the new standard, given that the record does not contain sufficient evidence *744 of control or lack thereof. Accordingly, we VACATE and REMAND for the district court to allow the parties to develop and present evidence with respect to the new standard and to allow the district court to assess in the first instance the extent of governmental control over the speech at issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 F.3d 743, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11036, 2006 WL 1163855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelts-skins-llc-v-landreneau-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack