| Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 22, 2013 Decided June 20, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Agency for International Development et al. v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., et al. |
| Docket no. | 12-10 |
| Citations | 570U.S. 205 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2321; 186L. Ed. 2d 398; 2013U.S. LEXIS 4699; 81 U.S.L.W. 4476 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 651F.3d218 (2d Cir. 2011) . |
| Holding | |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amends. I;U. S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (2003) | |
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known asAOSI I (to distinguish it from the2020 case), was aUnited States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated theFirst Amendment.[1][2]
In 2003, the United States Congress passed and PresidentGeorge W. Bush signeda law providing federal government funds to private groups to help fightAIDS and other diseases all over the world, through theUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, one of the conditions imposed by the law on grant recipients was a requirement, known as theanti-prostitution pledge, to have "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking".[3] Many AIDS agencies preferred to remain neutral on prostitution so as not to alienate the sex workers they work with to reduce HIV rates.[4]
DKT International filed a lawsuit in Washington, DC but the challenge to the law was defeated on appeal.[5]Alliance for Open Society International andPathfinder International filed another suit in 2005. In 2008,InterAction, andthe Global Health Council joined the suit against the provision in a federal court inNew York City, arguing that the requirement to promote a specific message violated theFirst Amendment's protection of free speech.[6] The district court judge ruled in their favor, and the provision has effectively been blocked since.[7] On appeal, theSecond Circuit Court upheld the judge's decision.
In November 2012, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by USAID, theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and theCenter for Disease Control. In a 6–2 decision, the court ruled in a majority written byChief Justice John Roberts that the government cannot force a private organization to publicly profess a viewpoint that mirrors the government's view but is not held by the organization itself. Such a requirement would be considered a form of "leveraging" and violated the First Amendment protection of free speech. JusticesAntonin Scalia andClarence Thomas jointly filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's ruling would prevent government funding for specific ideological programs.[1]
While the U.S. government subsequently did not hold American NGOs to the Policy Requirement for funding, it continues to require foreign affiliates of these NGOs to the requirement. A new set of lawsuits on this action began, and while the case upheld the Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5–3 decision inAOSI II in 2020 that the foreign affiliates were considered separate non-American entities of the American NGOs, and thus did not enjoy the First Amendment freedom of speech protections rights in this case.[8]