570 U.S. 205 (2013), 12-10, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.

Docket Nº12-10
Citation570 U.S. 205, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 186 L.Ed.2d 398, 81 U.S.L.W. 4476, 24 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. S 331
Opinion JudgeROBERTS, Chief Justice
Party NameAGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, et al., Petitioners v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.
AttorneySri Srinivasan, Washington, DC, for Petitioners. David W. Bowker, Washington, DC, for Respondents. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sri Srinivasan, Counsel of Record, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitors General, Jeffrey B....
Judge PanelROBERTS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. KAGAN, J. Justice SCALIA, with whom ...
Case DateJune 20, 2013
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 205

570 U.S. 205 (2013)

133 S.Ct. 2321, 186 L.Ed.2d 398, 81 U.S.L.W. 4476, 24 Fla.L.Weekly Fed. S 331

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, et al., Petitioners

v.

ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

No. 12-10

United States Supreme Court

June 20, 2013

Argued April 22, 2013

Page 206

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 207

[133 S.Ct. 2322] Syllabus [*]

In the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act), 22 U.S.C. § 7601 et seq., Congress has authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund efforts by nongovernmental organizations to combat HIV/AIDS worldwide. The Act imposes two related conditions: (1) No funds "may be used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution," § 7631(e); and (2) no funds may be used by an organization "that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution," § 7631(f). To enforce the second condition, known as the Policy Requirement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) require funding [133 S.Ct. 2323] recipients to agree in their award documents that they oppose prostitution.

Respondents, recipients of Leadership Act funds who wish to remain neutral on prostitution, sought a declaratory judgment that the Policy Requirement violates their First Amendment rights. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, barring the Government from cutting off respondents’ Leadership Act funding during the litigation or from otherwise taking action based on their privately funded speech. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Policy Requirement, as implemented by the agencies, violated respondents’ freedom of speech.

Held : The Policy Requirement violates the First Amendment by compelling as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the Government program. Pp. 2327 - 2332.

(a) The Policy Requirement mandates that recipients of federal funds explicitly agree with the Government’s policy to oppose prostitution. The First Amendment, however, "prohibits the government from telling people what they must say." Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156. As a direct regulation, the Policy Requirement would plainly violate the First Amendment. The question is whether the Government may nonetheless impose that requirement as a condition of federal funding. Pp. 2327 - 2328.

(b) The Spending Clause grants Congress broad discretion to fund private programs or activities for the "general Welfare," Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, including authority to impose limits on the use of such funds to ensure they are used in the manner Congress intends. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 195, n. 4, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233. As a general matter, if a party objects to those limits, its recourse is to decline the funds. In some cases, however, a funding condition can result in an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights. The distinction that has emerged from this Court’s cases is between conditions that define the limits of the Government spending program— those that specify the activities Congress wants to subsidize— and conditions that seek to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the federal program itself.

Rust illustrates the distinction. In that case, the Court considered Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which authorized grants to health-care organizations offering family planning services, but prohibited federal funds from being "used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." 500 U.S., at 178, 111 S.Ct. 1759. To enforce the provision, HHS regulations barred Title X projects from advocating abortion and required grantees to keep their Title X projects separate from their other projects. The regulations were valid, the Court explained, because they governed only the scope of the grantee’s Title X projects, leaving the grantee free to engage in abortion advocacy through programs that were independent from its Title X projects. Because the regulations did not prohibit speech "outside the scope of the federally funded program," they did not run afoul of the First Amendment. Id., at 197, 111 S.Ct. 1759. Pp. 2327 - 2330.

(c) The distinction between conditions that define a federal program and those that reach outside it is not always self-evident, but the Court is confident that the Policy Requirement falls on the unconstitutional side of the line. To begin, the Leadership Act’s other funding condition, which prohibits Leadership Act funds from being used "to promote or advocate the [133 S.Ct. 2324] legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking," § 7631(e), ensures that federal funds will not be used for prohibited purposes. The Policy Requirement thus must be doing something more— and it is. By demanding that funding recipients adopt and espouse, as their own, the Government’s view on an issue of public concern, the Policy Requirement by its very nature affects "protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program." Rust, supra, at 197, 111 S.Ct. 1759. A recipient cannot avow the belief dictated by the condition when spending Leadership Act funds, and assert a contrary belief when participating in activities on its own time and dime.

The Government suggests that if funding recipients could promote or condone prostitution using private funds, "it would undermine the government’s program and confuse its message opposing prostitution." Brief for Petitioners 37. But the Policy Requirement goes beyond preventing recipients from using private funds in a way that would undermine the federal program. It requires them to pledge allegiance to the Government’s policy of eradicating prostitution. That condition on funding violates the First Amendment. Pp. 2330 - 2332.

651 F.3d 218, affirmed.

ROBERTS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Sri Srinivasan, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

David W. Bowker, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sri Srinivasan, Counsel of Record, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitors General, Jeffrey B. Wall, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Michael S. Raab, Sharon Swingle, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Mark C. Fleming, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Jason D. Hirsch, Michael D. Gottesman, Shalev Roisman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, David W. Bowker, Counsel of Record, Catherine M.A. Carroll, Weili J. Shaw, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Rebekah Diller, Laura Abel, New York, NY, for Respondents.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Chief Justice

Page 208

The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act), 117 Stat. 711, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 7601 et seq., outlined a comprehensive strategy to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS around the world. As part of that strategy, Congress authorized the appropriation of billions of dollars to fund efforts by nongovernmental organizations to assist in the fight. The Act imposes two related conditions on that funding: First, no funds made available by the Act "may be used to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking." § 7631(e). And second, no funds may be used by an organization "that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." [133 S.Ct. 2325] § 7631(f). This case concerns the second of these conditions, referred to as the Policy Requirement. The question is whether that funding condition violates a recipient’s First Amendment rights.

I

Congress passed the Leadership Act in 2003 after finding that HIV/AIDS had "assumed pandemic proportions, spreading from the most severely affected regions, sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, to all corners of the world, and leaving an unprecedented path of death and devastation." 22 U.S.C. § 7601(1). According to congressional findings, more than 65 million people had been infected by HIV and more than 25 million had lost their lives, making HIV/AIDS the fourth highest cause of death worldwide. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, AIDS had claimed the lives of more than 19 million individuals and was projected to kill a full quarter of the population of that area over the next decade. The disease not only directly endangered those infected, but also increased the potential for social and political instability and economic devastation, posing a security issue for the entire international community. § 7601(2)-(10).

Page 209

In the Leadership Act, Congress directed the President to establish a "comprehensive, integrated" strategy to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. § 7611(a). The Act sets out 29 different objectives the President’s strategy should seek to fulfill, reflecting a multitude of approaches to the problem. The strategy must include, among other things, plans to increase the availability of treatment for infected individuals, prevent new infections, support the care of those affected by the disease, promote training for physicians and other health care workers, and accelerate research on HIV/AIDS prevention methods, all while providing a framework for cooperation with international organizations and partner countries to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
148 practice notes
121 cases
  • Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar, 011921 NDDC, 3:16-cv-00386
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of North Dakota
    • January 19, 2021
    ...use of such funds to ensure they are used in the manner Congress intends.” Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, 570 U.S. 205, 213 (2013) (citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 195 n.4 (1991)). Though broad, that authority comes with five restraints w......
  • 964 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2020), 19-1842, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    • June 30, 2020
    ...to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself." Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214-15, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 186 L.Ed.2d 398 (2013); see also, e.g., FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 399-401,......
  • 966 F.3d 145 (2nd Cir. 2020), 19-1715-cv, New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • July 21, 2020
    ...beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence." Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. at 213, 133 S.Ct. 2321 (quoting Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994)). Consi......
  • In re Seven Counties Services, Inc., 053014 KYWBC, 13-31442(1)(11)
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • May 30, 2014
    ...conditions on their appropriations. See, e.g. Agency for Intern. Development v. Alliance for Open Society Intern., Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 2327 (2013); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 195, n. 4 (1991) ("Congress' power to allocate funds for public purposes includes an anci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - October 2015
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • October 28, 2015
    ...proof." All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 651 F.3d 218, 229–30 (2d Cir.2011), aff'd, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 186 L.Ed.2d 398 The parties did not dispute that NYSPA met the first two requirements for associational standing: 1) NYSPA's members had stan......
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - October 2015
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 28, 2015
    ...proof." All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 651 F.3d 218, 229-30 (2d Cir.2011), aff'd, --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2321, 186 L.Ed.2d 398 (2013). The parties did not dispute that NYSPA met the first two requirements for associational standing: 1) NYSPA's members ......
  • The Supreme Court - June 29, 2020
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 30, 2020
    ...organizations, violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013). Plaintiffs then brought this suit, invoking the same First Amendment principle against §7631(f )’s policy requirement as applied agai......
  • The Supreme Court - June 29, 2020
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 30, 2020
    ...organizations, violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013). Plaintiffs then brought this suit, invoking the same First Amendment principle against §7631(f )’s policy requirement as applied agai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 books & journal articles
  • New problems for subsidized speech.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 56 Nbr. 4, March - March 2015
    • March 1, 2015
    ...note 11, at 218; Recent Case, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1506 , 1509-11 (2012) (analyzing and criticizing the Second Circuit's opinion). (13.) 133 S. Ct. 2321 (2013). (14.) Id. at 2328. (15.) Id. at 2332. (16.) Id. at 2328. (17.) Id. at 2328-29 (comparing Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wa......
  • Measuring party polarization in Congress: lessons from congressional participation as amicus curiae.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 65 Nbr. 4, June 2015
    • June 22, 2015
    ...2002-2013 Current and Former Development v. Members of Congress Alliance for Open as Amici Curiae in Society Intern., Support of Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2321 Respondents (2013) Brief of the Fisher v. University 2002-2013 Honorable Allen B. of Texas at Austin, West, Member of 133 S.Ct. 2411 Congress......
  • The First Amendment walks into a bar: trademark registration and free speech.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 92 Nbr. 1, November - November 2016
    • November 1, 2016
    ...supports the constitutionality of section 2(a)'s scandalousness bar). (66) Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Inf 1, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2328 (2013); see also Tam, 808 F.3d at 1369 (Dyk, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). (67) Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confedera......
  • The First Amendment's public forum.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 56 Nbr. 4, March - March 2015
    • March 1, 2015
    ...when the National Endowment for the Arts denied them funding). But see Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321, 2330 (2013) ("By demanding that funding recipients adopt--as their own--the Government's view on an issue of public concern, the conditi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 provisions