In United States v. United Foods, Inc. (2001) 533 U.S. 405, the court considered the constitutional validity of a program that imposed mandatory assessments on handlers of fresh mushrooms. In practice, these assessments were spent almost exclusively on generic advertising to promote mushroom sales. The court concluded that compelled funding of commercial speech must pass First Amendment scrutiny. (United Foods, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 411.) The court invalidated the mandatory assessments. Although Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) would permit the assessment if it were "germane to the larger regulatory purpose" (id. at p. 414) that justified the required association, the only regulatory purpose of the mushroom program was funding the advertising scheme in question (id. at pp. 414-415). Although the government argued that the advertising was immune from scrutiny because it was government speech, the court declined to consider the claim because it was untimely. (Id. at pp. 416-417.)