this morning we will hear arguments in case nineteen thousand one hundred and seventy seven united states agency for international development versus the alliance for open society international i note at the outset that justice response president bush proposed in congress adopted the leadership act since reauthorized three times the act has committed nearly eighty billion dollars to global aids relief and has worked saving more than seventeen million dollars lives in the most successful american foreign aid effort since the marshall plan the funding condition at issue here requires recipients to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking which congress found are coercive practices that spread aids hiv aids and degrade women and girls this court held that applying that condition to respondants domestic entities violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine but respondents sought more and the question now is whether the condition can still be applied to foreign grant recipients operating abroad it can produce freight forwarder either foreign entities lack constitutional rights so they cannot bring an unconstitutional conditions claim and neither can respondents because they are not subject to the funding condition thanks to their victory in this course respondents can accept and use funds without any compelled speech to be sure respondents can choose to affiliate with foreign entities that must comply with the policy condition but any effect on respondents message is now a product of their own choice not government compulsion respondents contrary view is startling they would allow us non profits to export constitutional rights to legally separated foreign entity it's a broad simply because they share similar brands that novel theory has no basis in this court's prior to fusion it could undermine longstanding regulations of speech and it has no practical justification for seventeen years before and recipients have been here to the policy condition without harming the aids relief program or respondents speech this court afforded respondents all the relief they deserve the decision below should be reversed council one thing that i think is not clear from the record is the precise relationship between the domestic and a d and its foreign affiliates we know that there are no formal corporate ties but that these entities share the same name the same logo the same brand what would you require beyond that before attributing the speech of a foreign entity to the domestic one mr chief justice you are correct the record is not particularly thorough on that issue despite fifteen years of litigation on this matter the district court ultimately entered the injunction to do issue here  d simply on one letter briefing but our position is that the formal distinction between the two entities the u s entity and the foreign entity is all that is required to attach a separate legal rights of course it's important to note that respondents and the foreign entities that they claim as affiliates made the choice to be separate legal entities that of choice of course have certain benefits for them such as shielding them from liability but it is it reasonable to insist on formal corporate ties in this in this context i gather that it's undisputed that to be effective in many of the foreign actually on the ground in the foreign country well two points on that mr chief justice st i think that that is not true as a uniform matter many of the respondents the u s entities do in fact operate in foreign countries  branch offices and as a result of this court's prior decision they always have a choice to operate in that way without compromising their speech in any way they are in other words completely in charge of their own message while also accepting leadership back funds and to take your nd point if they make the choice to operate through a foreign entity because they decide that that is more convenient or more effective they have to accept the bitter with the sweet to be sure operating through  distinct like legal entity but they're not without recourse they can for example explain that the policy statement being issued by the foreign entity doesn't reflect their own views their free speech allows them to do that and i and i would know  but presumably it does reflect their own views you know they have the same name the same logo the same brand and i wonder if it makes more sense to think of the foreign entity is simply another channel for the domestic entity speech mr chief justice of respect i don't i don't think it does and i think you know when that was the only option available as it was in the court's decision last time i can understand of course why the court decided the case the way it did now that respondents have a separate choice in fact the very choice that they were fighting for last time any consequences of the choice to operate as separate entities is a result of their own decisions and i wanted to no you thank you counsel justice thomas mr michel the respondent seems to argue that your guidelines your affiliate guidelines actually support their argument what do you think of that justice thomas i don't think that they do as a as an initial matter and even if they did i think that would at most be a basis for challenging the guidelines not not the constitutionality of the statute and to start with the st line the guidelines of which are reproduce requirements and there are five non exhaustive exhaustive requirements spelled out there or those would generally be satisfied by an entity that has a legal separation so i think it would be a rare circumstance that these regulations would ever result and the denial of funding to a foreign affiliate and to make one related point respondents themselves are no longer subject to the policy requirement as a result of their prior decision in this case so if they run  afoul of these regulations which simply interpret what it means to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking these regulations can be a mechanism for depriving the respondents themselves of funds when this case was here last  seem to remember it was about the domestic organization what has changed since it was here the there was very little talk the only time that affiliates actually came out was as an alternative to the enforcement procedures that were being used to wear the domestic organizations that so what has changed since this case was here last well justice  right that was all that was that issue last time and the only thing that has changed is their response have asked for a broader belief and although we fully accept the court's prior decision we submitted responses are simply not entitled to any further relief suggest there's nothing in this court's decision that contemplates or suggests applying the prohibition on applying the policy requirement to foreign entities overseas so i think the court ought to simply analyze the claim under st principles and as i said at the outset i think two simple principles resolve the case respondents themselves are not subject to a funding conditions so they can't have an unconstitutional conditions and the foreign entities that are subject to the funding condition have no constitutional right so they can't have an unconstitutional condition can claim either we do think that when respondents are asking for is unjustifiably bootstrapping this court's prior decision into global relief and we simply don't think there's any basis for that there are a few reasons for that those are the main international organizations that are composed of their own separate sovereigns and so i think it makes sense that congress would have wanted to respect the sovereignty of the members of those organizations in a way that doesn't of course applied to nonprofit organizations receiving funds and as you hear the vaccine organization that you mentioned as well seems to be particularly unlikely to bring into play the considerations that motivated congress to require the anti prostitution and sex trafficking pledge because they're not operating in the field they're simply doing research on on vaccines but i don't take  we encourage that that goes back to a point i was going to make earlier which is the pledge that's required by the statute only requires one permit of speech act and that is submitting to usa id with the grant agreement  a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking but there's no requirement that foreign entities that make that that make that pledge shouted from the mountaintops or get into anybody's face about it they are completely free to and encouraged to work with prostitutes and victims of sex trafficking to prevent hiv aids and need you know one of the reasons for including this requirement in the statute and many other provisions of the statute dealing with prostitution a congress recognized that women who are often coerced into those practices are at themselves at heightened risk contracting the disease of spreading the disease and of course of losing other opportunities in their lives so we certainly encourage groups to do that kind of work and it's not at all in tension with with the policy requirement i would also note that the amicus brief filed in this court case last time by the coalition against trafficking at women which made the point that many prostitutes and victims of sex trafficking are themselves opposed to prostitution and sex trafficking and so wouldn't take offense at the statement that the groups have to make but in any event thank you counsel justice briar following up on that question some would some would take offense and it's in the last case you said that the sword we said this court said this organization which takes money from the government and uses it to fight aids goes to prostitutes as part of their effort and says use safety and that's one way of helping to fight aids and if it the same time they have to say we again spots to to sion we don't like it we're against it it's terrible well the prostitutes will think they're hypocrites or maybe worse and we'll be suspicious that was their reasoning last time how does that change one iota in terms of their rights which we said they had the major organizations in the united states had the right to do how does that change one iota if you instead of sending their own worker there they give the money to a foreign worker in india who is associated with them and that foreign worker goes and she says exactly the same thing to the prostitute since the foreign workers are identified by name mission logo with the domestic workers how does it interfere one whit less if we accept your argument they will be seen domestic as well as the foreign ones as hypocrite or worse interfering with their mission if we accepted that argument before why don't we accept it now but a couple of quick responses justice prior i don't think that the court did base its prior decision on that particular concern i think it based its decision on the st amendment rights of the u s entities that were receiving the funds and so the principal difference between the case last time in the case this time is not that the entities are interacting with prostitutes in any different manner it's that the entities that are now subject to the funding condition lack of constitutional rights under deeply established you know the people established principles that foreign entities abroad don't exercise constitutional rights and therefore can be subject to greater speech restrictions than u entities at home now i do i want to reiterate that i think the concerns that you have raised while legitimate are are not borne out in practice because the policy requirements whether applied in the past to domestic groups or now to foreign groups  require them to tell prostitutes that they oppose prostitution or to do anything affirmative beyond agreeing to be opposed to prostitution and sex trafficking in the letter and we're fortunate to have a seventeen year track record to look at here the foreign entities have from the very beginning and even recently under stays of the the district courts injunction in this phase of the litigation been subject to the policy requirements throughout that period and as dr straus noted and his dissent below they have alito counsel as i understand the government's position it depends on whether the foreign entity that ultimately gets the legal leadership act funds is a separate legal entity or legally distinct from the u s entity is that correct yeah it depends what we look at is whether the recipient of the funds the entity subject of the condition has st amendment rights or not and we think that turns on whether they're u s entity or a foreign entity all right so what do you understand to be the meaning of legally separate or legally distinct and how would that apply where the u s entity is a nonprofit corporation a trust or an unincorporated association if there are any of those and in the situation where a is organized in one of those ways so the the sort of difficult questions about how how to parse incorporation have really not arisen in this case because i think respondents and the foreign entities that issue are clearly legally separate in the way that matters for the funding program which is to say they've applied stafford lee for different grants and so the easiest way to answer the question i think is that when a u s hands at the applies for a what how would we determine what is legally separate from what foreign entity is legally separate from a trust us trust we haven't confronted the trust question so i don't have a ready answer for that i think i think that in the seventeen year history of the program that there really hasn't been any difficulty in telling a part for and foreign f whether it was a legally separate entity but a multi factor test under the regulation to which justice thomas referred you know with respect to us and we know that that's not and hasn't been our position from from the out that the government has applied the policy requirement to foreign entities abroad and it turns out as a result of injunctions for almost an entire period the government has not applied the policy requirement to  am sorry chief did it again mr michel belong in the short of this is that a domestic agency that does not want to adopt a policy of being opposed to abortion but who is willing to not support it in a program they can't receive funds unless they affiliate with someone who will make the statement for th without contracting or or otherwise working through a feeling that this is a mess the corporation who doesn't want to speak the government's message but doesn't want to do the program can't unless it finds a facially addressing the restriction do you when i think if you read it is truly facially invalidating this bad you know we couldn't go with whatever the reason i moved on to another question in hobby of ours we recognize that a closely held corporation at least could be viewed as expressing the religious beliefs of that song or a person  early we said that parade organizers could be identified by the people who marched in their parade and similarly when reagan said that an entity could speak through  philly it who would be recognized as itself because it could then do lobbying that reagan couldn't do under the government program so these cases seem to suggest to me that imputation or perception and to the extent that these corporations are closely affiliated and personal ming i know you said before that you don't think there's enough in the record we can deal with that separate but presuming that the public does perceive these entities as one then why wouldn't the st amendment apply to the inability of the domestic corporations  no one is forcing the domestic entity to affiliate with a foreign entity domestic and if he has a choice to take the money and use it itself and any hypocrisy or disturbance to its message that result is the result of its own choice to affiliate with a group that is a foreign entity that extends leadership pac funds and must make the statement so there's simply not being forced to affiliate with anyone in the way that was that issue in those cases you cited a i like to just follow up on that for a moment you seem to rely pretty heavily on the legal separation of the st amendment it's not clear to me why that that that cares as opposed to final corporate separation here is that that's how the grant program is organized and this court you're right in hurley where there was a force for system association the court held that attribution matters but in every one of the court's funding condition cases the court has looked to the effect on the recipient of the funds itself and here respondent and the foreign entities are making a conscious choice to apply for separate grants as separate entities and to be subject to separate conditions i think the argument is a little goes a little bit below the force nature of so ca sion to be concerned about schilling speech can speak to that st amendment doesn't care just about protecting speech it also is concerned about avoiding chilliness i think that i think you're you're of course right about that but i simply don't see any chilling of speech here given that as a result of this court's prior decision the domestic entities are free to take the money and and use it themselves in charge of their own message and they're also free to make a different choice which is to work through a foreign affiliate that has a result of respondents own choice will have to make the policy statement opposing prostitution and sex trafficking but even in that instance respondents are still free to use their own speech rights to explain that that they don't share their views before an affiliate on prostitution  ultimately what respondents are asking for is a sort of right to optimal message management which is simply not what the st amendment protects if you look at cases like rumsfeld versus parent the court explained that the law schools in that case might well be concerned about the misattribution of their position on letting military recruiters on campus and yet that concern alone was not a reason to find unconstitutional conditions violation and likewise in the courts other funding cases like r for example and reagan the entities were ultimately not allowed to operate and their preferred manner with the abortion providers for instance and rusk certainly didn't want to have to separate their speech in the way that they did but the court found that it was constitutionally permissible for congress and the executive branch to require them to separate that speech because they still had an open channel to express their st amendment views and after this court's prior decision respondents clearly have an open  channel to express their views without feeling and without having to give up the money thank you pound so justice kavanagh thank you chief justice good morning mr michel i'm interested in the implications of our decision in this case in particular if the government were to lose this case would any other programs or statutes be invalidated or called into question by such a decision well justice cavanagh i think that there would be real concerns about that of course i'm not here to give up any other statutes but i do think that gravel men of respondents position is that they and their foreign entities that they've chosen to keep separate somehow be treated as some kind of single global unified entity and if that is the theory that they're operating under i do think it would call into question a number of different statutory and administrative regulations o in speech that like that likely couldn't be applied domestically for example congress has long banned campaign contributions in u s elections by foreign entities but the congress of course could not ban such contributions by speech and there are many other examples that we sign our brief as well if in fact common place for congress and the executive branch to condition foreign aid to entities abroad on certain policy objectives such as opposing terrorism or supporting women's rights or opposing apartheid or in the case of the mexico city policy taking certain positions on abortion and those content based viewpoint based speech restrictions might not be permissible in the united states and  domestic entities who were able to confer or or you know unite with their foreign bodies foreign entities to challenge those who would i think create considerable risk of disturbing long settled long settled laws one other question as to the program with respect to u s domestic organizations suffered any problems or been any less successful since this court's decision in two thousand and thirteen as far as you're aware  not at all the program with respect to both domestic and foreign recipients of funds has as i said at the outset truly been one of the historic successes in you know in the history of u s foreign aid and i think you know we do have sort of the controlled experiment over the last fifteen years as a result of injunctions in the st case and stays of the injunction in this case that the current status quo whereby u s entities are not subject to the policy requirements of foreign entities are subject to the policy requirement has been the background law in place for about fifteen years and that has neither set back the extraordinary success of the program nor created as good straub noted in his in his powerful dissent any a resolved on a straightforward basis that respondents themselves long accepted and that to the policy condition is a permissible exercise of congress's course spending power as applied to foreign recipients that lack st amendment rights but chief justice and made please the court the undisputed record shows that the us respondent themselves suffer st amendment harms when the policy requirement is imposed on their foreign affiliate respondents and their affiliates share a name brand logo mission and voice they speak as one make speech and policy decisions together and are indistinguishable to the public as a result the st amendment rights of u respondents are violated here in two ways st by a speech compulsion that is attributed to them when care in kenya takes the pledge it's affirmation of belief is attributed to care in the united states th putting words in the mouth of the u s entity the nd phylicia is from a speech restriction under regulations that prohibit any care entity from contradicting the pledge even on its own time and dime th making it impossible for carry us to disavow care kenya's pledge without engaging in double speak and losing u s funding for its global network the government says the burden is on respondents to avoid such harms by applying for funding themselves severing their connections to affiliates or disavowing the pledge but this hasn't backward when a statute violates the st amendment the burden is on the government not the speaker to give st amendment freedoms the necessary breathing space plus the government proposals all fail in practice asking respondents to apply for funds ignores that they must work through local affiliates in places where local laws or the u s government's own funding criteria require it severing ties with affiliates would destroy their organization opposing such a choice demonstrates how the government continues to use its vast spending power to coerce respondents fe disclaimers also fail because this court recognized in two thousand and thirteen u s respondents cannot credibly disavow the speech of their own clearly identified affiliate injunction affords respondents complete relief from these violations and should be upheld counsel can your client compel what the foreign affiliates say on this question we represent several different organizations here as your honor knows and i think it is correct as a factual matter that in every case the u s organization effectively can veto the speech of a foreign organization on these issues they do speak together they make their speech choices together but the u s and cities here as a practical matter typically control that speech can you give me a citation of the record a where i can look to find that because i thought that  by saying that there wasn't a formal affiliation but the organizations share the logo and the name and so forth that there was some absence of control and in fact that's what the foreign governments for example were insisting on i think i think your honor is correct that there is as a legal matter there may be the absence of control in some cases but in every case there is practical control i think the best citations to the record would be for ford care would be at j s three hundred and eighty nine which talks about how the care entity speaks with a single global voice and that cage legal control to dictate what occurs under that brand thank you for that counsel you used the phrase practical control and i just wonder precisely what your test for that would be i think the right test here is the risk of attribution as this as this court recognized in two thousand and thirteen there can be a risk of attribution across corporate lines where the entities in question are so clearly identified as they are here i think the practical control point is even stronger when those entities spe together with one voice and make their speech and policy decisions together thank you counsel justice thomas yes thank you chief justice does you have an opportunity  in the lower courts to just discuss or debate what criteria would be used to determine whether or not the two organizations merged or a close associate is closely enough so that the st amendment rights apply domestically we did your honor judge moore arrow gave the parties an opportunity to both submit  voluminous materials into the record and to explain to him the relationship between these entities i think here what's important is there is no dispute about the relationships here these entities are clearly identified with one another there's no dispute that they share a name brand logo mission and voice and i think critically here there was a two year period where we worked hard to try to settle this case with the government we provided extensive factual information to the government during that period we also provided lists of the entities involved and we offered to stipulate to a definition and the  recap of what the criteria would be for that affiliation that would be close absolutely i think here the test should be organisations that are part of a global network that share names brands logos missions and voices and i think the reason that that's the right test is because we're talking about attribution by the reasonable observer as this court has recognized in a long line of cases that justice sotomayor mention and that justice justices alito and briar previously discussed a long line of cases recognize that there can be attribution across corporate lines especially with tightly knit international organizations like the i understand that so the one final question and i know you've covered this be helpful if you would give us a recap of what precisely you think your injury is well i think the the types of injuries are two fold of st injury is the compulsion of speech and the problem here is that even though the pledge is being imposed on our foreign affiliate those words are effectively put into the mouths of the u s respondents because of the attribution problem and the government says well it's no harm to the u s organizations because of course they can remain neutral but that's not right once those words are put into the mouths of the u s respond and they have to date back policy position is attributed to them and the harm is done from that compelled speech the nd nature the  category of harms comes from the speech restrictions imposed by the regulation with those say is the foreign affiliate will lose its funding unless it maintains adequate separation from organizations that say or do anything inconsistent with the policy so when the government says that the u s organization can disavow the pledge that comes at a high price which is the loss of funding for the foreign affiliate and so the categories of injuries are twofold one dollar from the speech compulsion and the other from the speech restriction it's a catch twenty two dollars for these u s organizations thank you counsel justice ginsburg contrary belief or even claim neutrality without appearing hypocritical and without appearing to engage in double speak and the problem here of course is that the entities are indistinguishable and they speak as one and so focusing on the corporate difference is a mistake after all it would be odd that the international operating arms of  organizations are treated differently based on whether they operate through branch offices or through separate corporations and in fact what what is wrong with the government's view that this is all by choice is that there are certain jurisdictions where local law and even the u s government's own funding criteria require these u s respondents to work through local affiliates and so we're caught on able to  the st response is i don't want the court to think that we're trying to export the st amendment that's not what we're trying to do we're just trying to afford complete relief to u s organizations that have st amendment rights here but to your honor's good question i think in a system with a limited government and a constitution that includes a bill of rights i think there is a fair question about the extent to which the u s government can go beyond what i authorized to do in the constitution with respect to speech i guess the other point i would add is that even these clearly identified affiliates overseas i think the government would concede have st amendment rights when they act here in the united states as they often do when they come here for meetings or to publish papers or to participate in conferences and the problem with the pledge requirement of s to oppose so why don't you simply write a grant to get all the money yourself and then you give it to cure india that work the problem with that your honor is that according to the government the policy requirement still binds the u s organization in the following way if tear us get the money and some grants to care india it must carry the burden of the government in the sense of imposing the policy requirement on its own affiliate and police compliance with the policy requirement not just with respect to the speech and activities of its foreign affiliate but also with respect to itself lest it violate the regulation which is what we're driving and in the briefs or in the record just what you said because it seems to me just what you said shows that this case is one hundred percent about the rights of an american company the parent and the question is can they form bid can the government require them to for bid one channel of communicating the message can it control what they say in that channel the channel happens to be a channel that goes abroad i don't know that there's any precedence for the policy the precedent that says they can i mean if i got that right is that clear yes i think the best citations in the record justice brier would be the regulations themselves j a to forty eight to sixty five and i would direct your honor's attention to the discussion the commentary of forty entities that speak inconsistently but they even go so far as to say there has to be separation from entities that do not have a policy themselves suggesting that the government's view is that the u s respond in itself should have a policy i also think another place to look in the record is that j and three hundred and seventy five and three hundred and ninety where the path finder organization talks about u funding criteria that require them to work through local affiliates and local incorporated entities thank you thank you justice alito i agree with because i am concerned that it will force congress either to withhold foreign aid entirely or to allow foreign aid to be used in ways that are contrary to the interests of the schools for the purpose of promoting education in countries we get education system and suppose the congress specifies that any foreign entity that gets a sub grant must have a policy denouncing terrorist attacks against is compelled to speak it doesn't want to make that speech it is affiliated with an american entity why isn't the argument exactly the same in that situation  i think that there's a problem with jermaine as in that case the requirement there wouldn't be related to the federal program but your to your honor's i think larger question  doesn't turn on the particular ideology i think any any ideological commitment any requirement of an ideological commitment by grantees is problematic for the same reasons as the one here you know what i believe and that's exactly right let me get let me ask you one more question before my time expires why doesn't the logic of your argument apply to the provision of funds to totally independent to you cannot use you must have a policy opposing prostitution the us and is compelled to make a statement that it doesn't want to make what isn't the logic of your argument apply there well in that case the entity being made to take the pledge is not clearly identified with the us and city and therefore the pledge of the foreign entity doesn't get attributed back to the us and to the end i think that's a very important difference organizations are indistinguishable and speak with one voice i i do think it's important to make the point that the government still has very broad authority to control what happens with its funds to put in place policies for its programs and to require that grantees fulfill the requirements of the program in every respect this particular requirement is unique there's no other requirement like it in u s law and i think a decision for respondents can be very narrow turning on the facts of this case and the prior ruling of this court which declared the policy requirement unconstitutional thank you counsel justice so counsel there has been a long history to this case i'm not quite sure what the relationship is of your clients to the agency now are your clients grant recipients who currently receive grants currently work through their foreign affiliates and their foreign affiliates have not taken this pledge or have they not received grants and want to work with but a smaller group because the rest of the clients are too small to have global networks we now are talking about the entities that were before the court in two thousand and thirteen that of the large international entities like care and save the children and world vision and pathfinder that are the ones with their own clearly identified affiliates overseas and these organizations receive money here in the united states and receive money through their locally incorporated affiliate kare which is the example we've been using the u s entity receives all u s grant money under this program and then sub grants to its local affiliates and so in the case of care it has done that under objection it it  that it should be free of this policy requirement it believes that litigation in two thousand and thirteen would have disposed of this issue and it continues to suffer these st amendment harms and violations that we've been discussing today i don't not sure you can trick my question they are receiving the funds are they sub contracting with affiliates or partnering with affiliates and are these silly it's making the pledge and they're complaining about the fact that they're forced to do that or they have got not been have they not been policing the foreign affiliates and the government is now threatening to take away well it's a little bit of both your honor let me explain they are receiving the funds and they are imposing the pledge requirement under objection on their clearly identified foreign affiliates overseas the government has said that all these years there's been no objection to this practice i don't think that's exactly right with respect to my friend in fact early in the litigation there was there was a disagreement in the district court about the proper scope of the injunctive relief and the respondents wanted broader relief to include sub grantees and the government objected on the ground that those facts were not yet  known and the facts now are known that was that was fully twelve years ago the facts are known the record is developed the district court entered its findings and i think there's no dispute about the nature of the relationship now and so are they threatening to take away the funding they are now saying that the policy requirement will be enforced as against the clearly identified for an affiliate of the  respondents because they say those organizations have no st amendment right we argue that this isn't about any rights of the foreign organizations it's about a st amendment right i'm sorry for interrupting but if the foreign affiliates have made the policy statement what they've done what the government wants why what the government take the funding away from  w we object to that policy requirement we don't want to have to impose it on our quote clearly identified affiliates and it's causing the u s respondents to have to engage in double speak and if they do that if they attempt to disavow that pledge which is attributed to them they will lose their funding for the global network and cause so just isn't in response to a justice ginsburg and justice thomas you indicated that the primary harm your client had suffered is the risk of attribution mistaken attribution of the foreign affiliates speech to the domestic en y and that sounds a bit like an alter ego argument that the ordinary listener will be confused and attribute the speech of a foreign affiliate to the domestic enemy yet at the same time i  assume you would resist any effort to pierce the corporate veil from those foreign entities and impose liability on the domestic entity so in what respect is it and when should we attribute speech or actions of foreign affiliates to the domestic energy why would we pierce the corporate veil sometimes but not all the time your honor we don't ask the court to pierce the veil or to treat these entities as alter egos rather we're focused on the unique nature of speech and the way speech can be attributed even when corporate formalities are observed and i think the right line sons of confederate veterans pacific gas and electric and as just a sort of my or mentioned the hurley parade case all of those cases recognize that legally separate entities or individuals and cities can have speech attributed from one to the other without engaging in any kind of veil piercing or alter ego analysis which would get the court mired into the corporate formalities which we don't advocate rather we think a more limited holding based on the nature of speech and the st amendment would suffice on that score what evidence is there that there is this risk of best evidence is in the record and unrebutted sworn declarations of these organizations which talk about how they are perceived in the public health community the price they are paying in the form of hypocrisy and the way that they lose their integrity and their reputation and their brand when they're forced to speak out of two sides of their mouth the declarations that learn understand  understand that harm kill so i'm sorry to interrupt but i understand the harm that people will see the disavowal and will will take cognizance of it but is that the same thing is anyone really thinking that the domestic energy abides by the government restrictions and door system anyone really think that when they when they read that or do they think that this is a statement made by thing that they believe something i think people take it very seriously when they say that they believe that hiv aids is transmitted in a certain way or when they say they believe that prostitution should be dealt with in a way that stops the spread of the disease people listen to them the reason they're so effective program counsel counsel except that again there's not really quite my question couldn't a reasonable person hold in his or her mind two things one for an entity believes x to the domestic entity does not believe x well your honor i think that falls apart when the organization speaks with one voice as these organizations do they they have a right to speak that way they have a right to to join with their affiliate in having their their their common voice and their common mission and when they're told to say one thing and then disavow it in another breath i think it undercuts their reputation and brand in their own speech i think your honor how did exactly right back then counsel to to the belief that people will always confuse this is one entity and it's not possible for a local chapter of an organization to have a different view than a national organization international organization people cannot hold that concept in their heads briefly counsel yes briefly i think the public doesn't know that these are separate corporations the problem is that they are indistinguishable and they they look to the public to be exactly the same and so it really would be more like your honour's case in masterpiece cake shop making the baker say one thing and then attempt to disavow it in the next breath entities acting abroad have no constitutional rights under this court's precedence we do your honor and then i want to pick up on justice alito is concern or question about the foreign policy effects of your approach and i have a lot hypothetical as well suppose the u s government wants to fund foreign n g o s that support peace in the middle east but only if the n explicitly recognize israel as a legitimate state are you saying the u s can't impose that kind of speech restriction on foreign n g o s that are ciliated with u s organizations i think that's a harder case because i don't i don't hear that as requiring affirmation of a belief rather than recognizing a fact that the u s has established a certain diplomatic relationship with with israel and the u s government gets to say what that relationship is for the united states i don't think that's making the entity as spouses that view as their own and so i think that's different i think that would be acceptable that would be acceptable in your view i think it would be ok and then the government says so your position would unleash foreign affiliates of u s corporations to pump money into the s selection process and i wanted to give you a chance to respond to that claim which was in the government's reply brief and then repeated here today i disagree with that that's a very different case that is a that is a speech restriction it is not speech compulsion and that restriction doesn't apply to the u s organizations and so i think this court dealt with that the right way and citizens united and distinguished the foreign organizations from the u s organizations and it's a different case thank you one minute to wrap up mr bowker thank you your honor applying the policy requirement to foreign members of these tight knit international entities fighting a hiv aids overseas puts words in the mouths of the us members of those entities in the program regulations effectively prevent the us members from even disavowing what the foreign members are compelled to say the injunction should be upheld thank you counsel mr michel three minutes for a bottle thank you mr chief justice just a few points and rebuttal st to respond to justice sotomayor as question about facial invalidity footnote one of our reply brief explains that the government's prior submission was clear that the statute was being challenged only with respect to domestic entities and in fact true facial invalidation would invalidate the statute even as applied to foreign entities that have no connection to the united states which i take it my friend has just conceded is not his position nd my friend conceit of my friend stated that the us entity truly is in control and i think that's exactly right but that ultimately underscores that it's the u entity the holder of the st amendment rights that is making a choice to affiliate with a foreign entity that accepts leadership back land unlike in this case last time and unlike in cases like earlier masterpiece the u entity is not required to make that choice the u s entity has a separate choice to accept leadership back upon itself and operate itself without in foreign countries without any risk of hypocrisy or or a mixed message says you have to take the sweet with the sour when you decide to set up a separate corporate entity now my friend suggests that either u s funding conditions or foreign law somehow give an incentive for alluded to that test would be unworkable and it would call into question all manner of us speech restrictions on foreign entities abroad now my friend says there's a distinction between speech restrictions and speech compulsion the risk of attribution test that he has outlined where you simply compare names logos and brands has nothing to do with the distinction between speech attribution and speech can hold can and at all events the foreign entities here are only if they if than a decade of the litigation i think what happened is that having secured rights for us sense of ease they decided to ask for the world but there is no basis in this court's prior decision or any other source of law for that for that holding it would invalidate a provision that congress has adopted and reauthorized and that is working the decision below should be reversed thank you counsel the case is submitted