Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2019 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
ET AL. v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY 
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 19–177.  Argued May 5, 2020—Decided June 29, 2020 

In the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
Malaria Act of 2003, as relevant here, Congress limited the funding of 
American and foreign nongovernmental organizations to those with “a
policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”  22 U. S. C. 
§7631(f).  In 2013, that Policy Requirement, as it is known, was held
to  be  an  unconstitutional  restraint  on  free  speech  when  applied  to
American organizations.  Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for 
Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U. S. 205.  Those American organizations
now  challenge  the  requirement’s  constitutionality  when  applied  to 
their legally distinct foreign affiliates.  The District Court held that the 
Government  was  prohibited  from  enforcing  the  requirement  against 
the foreign affiliates, and the Second Circuit affirmed. 

Held: Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment 
rights,  applying  the  Policy  Requirement  to  them  is  not  unconstitu-
tional.  Two bedrock legal principles lead to this conclusion.  As a mat-
ter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U. S. terri-
tory  do  not  possess  rights  under  the  U. S.  Constitution.  See,  e.g., 
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 770–771.  And as a matter of Amer-
ican corporate law, separately incorporated organizations are separate
legal  units  with  distinct  legal  rights  and  obligations.    See,  e.g.,  Dole 
Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 474–475.  That conclusion cor-
responds  to  Congress’s  historical  practice  of  conditioning  funding  to
foreign organizations, which helps ensure that U. S. foreign aid serves 
U. S. interests. 

Plaintiffs’  counterarguments  are  unpersuasive.  First,  they  claim