Alliance for Open Soc. v. U.S. Agency Intern. Dev.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05 Civ. 8209.,05 Civ. 8209.
• Citation: 430 F.Supp.2d 222
• Parties: ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

430 F.Supp.2d 222

ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT et al., Defendants.

No. 05 Civ. 8209.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 8, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Aziz Huq, Burt Neuborne, David Stuart Udell, Lara K. Abel, Rebekah Ruth Diller, Brennan Center for Justice, New York, NY, Richard A. Johnston, Hale and Dorr, LLP, Boston, MA, David William Bowker, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC), New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Christine Ingrid Magdo, Covington & Burling (NYC), New York City, Claudia Maria Flores, ACLU Women's Rights Project, New York, NY, for Defendants.

Jessica Neuwirth, Equality Now, New York, NY, Lawrence S. Lustberg, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione (Newark), Newark, NJ, Amicus.

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................  228
                 II. BACKGROUND ...............................................................  229
                 A. FACTS .................................................................  229
                        1. The Parties ........................................................  230
                           a. Plaintiffs ......................................................  230
                           b. Defendants ......................................................  231
                              i. In General ...................................................  231
                             ii. In Relation to the Act .......................................  231
                        2. HIV/AIDS ...........................................................  231
                           a. Internationally .................................................  231
                           b. In Central Asia .................................................  232
                           c. Among High-Risk Populations .....................................  232
                        3. The Act ............................................................  232
                           a. In General ......................................................  232
                           b. Role of Private Partners in Combating HIV/AIDS ..................  233
                           c. Findings and Policies Regarding the Social and Behavioral Cause
                               of HIV/AIDS, Particularly Prostitution .........................  233
                           d. The Government Funds Restriction ................................  233
                           e. The Policy Requirement ..........................................  233
                        4. Defendants' Implementation of the Act ..............................  234
                           a. USAID ...........................................................  234
                              i. Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directives .................  234
                             ii. Plaintiffs Seek Clarification of Requirements ................  235
                           b. HHS and the CDC .................................................  237
                

                        5. Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motions for a Preliminary Injunction .....  237
                III. APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ...........................  239
                IV. DISCUSSION ...............................................................  239
                     A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits ...................................  239
                        1. Statutory Interpretation ...........................................  239
                           a. Plain Meaning of the Statutory Text .............................  240
                           b. Purpose of the Statute ..........................................  242
                           c. Legislative History .............................................  244
                           d. Draining Other Provisions of Meaning ............................  246
                              i. Superfluous Provisions .......................................  246
                              ii. Other Provisions ............................................  248
                                  (a) "Moral Objection" .......................................  248
                                  (b) Palliative and Prophylactic Care ........................  248
                                  (c) Specific Restriction in § 7631(e) ..................  249
                           e. Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance and Deference to Agency
                               Interpretation .................................................  249
                        2. First Amendment Claims .............................................  251
                           a. Applicable Standard Review ......................................  251
                              i. Congress's Power Pursuant to the Spending Clause .............  252
                             ii. Overview of Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine .............  252
                            iii. Determination of the Applicable Standard .....................  253
                                 (a) The Government Cannot Adequately Distinguish Regan
                                      League of Women Voters, and Rust ........................  261
                                     i. Alternate Channels for First Amendment Activities .....  261
                                    ii. The Role of NGOs ......................................  262
                                 (b) American Library Association Is Not Controlling ..........  263
                                 (c) The Act's Effect on International Affairs Is Not Cause
                                     for the Automatic Application of a Rational Basis
                                     Standard of Review .......................................  265
                             iv. Statement of Standard of Review ..............................  267
                           b. Application of Standard and Additional First Amendment
                                Analysis ......................................................  268
                               i. As Construed by Defendants, the Provision Is Not Narrowly
                                   Tailored to Achieve Congress's Goals .......................  268
                              ii. The Policy Requirement, As Construed by Defendants, Is
                                   Unconstitutional Because it Improperly Applies Its Viewpoint
                                   Discriminatory Restriction to Plaintiffs' Private
                                   Funds ......................................................  271
                             iii. The Act Unconstitutionally Compels Speech ...................  274
                        3. AOSI and Pathfinder Have Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success on
                            Their Constitutional Claims .......................................  276
                        4. OSI Has Not Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success With Regard to
                            Its Claim for Relief ..............................................  277
                     B. IRREPARABLE HARM ......................................................  278
                  V. ORDER ..................................................................  278
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs, Alliance for Open Society International ("AOSI"), Open Society Institute ("OSI") and Pathfinder International ("Pathfinder") (collectively "Plaintiffs") brought suit against defendants, the United States Agency for International Development and Andrew S. Natsios in his official capacity as its administrator (collectively "USAID"), the United States Department of Health and Human Services and Michael O. Leavitt in his official capacity as its Secretary (collectively "HHS"), and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Julie Louise Gerbeding in her official capacity as its Director (collectively "CDC") (and USAID, HHS and CDC collectively "Defendants," or the "Agencies," or the "Government"). Plaintiffs seek clarification of a provision of the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (the "Act"), 22 U.S.C. §§ 7601 et seq. Under the Act, AOSI receives funding from USAID and Pathfinder receives funding from USAID, HHS, and CDC to administer programs authorized by the Act. OSI does not- receive government funding pursuant to the Act but fears that AOSI's funding under the Act my be jeopardized 1:137 OSI's activities.

The Act forbids the Agencies from awarding funds authorized for its purposes to "any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution[.]" 22 U.S.C. § 7631(f). Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' interpretation of this provision, which Plaintiffs contend places limits on Plaintiffs' activities carried out with their private, non-government funds, and leaves Plaintiffs with no alternative avenue to express certain points of view. Plaintiffs argue that this restriction violates the First Amendment. Thus, they seek a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from penalizing Plaintiffs, through the withholding of Act-authorized funds or other methods, on the grounds that Plaintiffs have used their private funding to engage in activities that Defendants view as insufficiently opposed to prostitution.

II. BACKGROUND¹

A. FACTS

1. The Parties²

a. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs are United States-based nonprofit organizations actively participating in the worldwide effort to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS. As part of this effort, they work closely with populations that have a high risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, including persons engaged in prostitution.³

OSI is the principal United States-based foundation established and financed by George Soros, organized under New York law, supporting a network of more than thirty "Soros Foundations" that operate worldwide (the "Open Society Network"). Each of these Soros foundations is independently established under local laws and governed by a local board of directors. OSI does not currently receive funding from Defendants under the Act.

AOSI, although closely affiliated to OSI as a member of the Open Society Network, is a legally independent non-profit organization incorporated in Delaware with offices in New York, New York and Almaty, Kazakhstan. AOSI was created in 2003 with a mission to "promote democratic governance, human rights, public health and economic, legal and social reform" in Central Asia. (Kushen Decl. at 2.) AOSI administers a program, known as the Drug Demand Reduction...