Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2012 

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. 12–10.  Argued April 22, 2013—Decided June 20, 2013 

In the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and 
Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act), 22 U. S. C. §7601 et seq., Con-
gress  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 organiza-
tion  “that  does  not  have  a  policy  explicitly  opposing  prostitution,”
§7631(f).  To  enforce  the  second  condition,  known  as  the  Policy  Re-
quirement,  the  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  (HHS) 
and  the  United  States  Agency  for  International  Development 
(USAID)  require  funding  recipients  to  agree  in  their  award  docu-
ments that they oppose prostitution.
  Respondents,  recipients  of  Leadership  Act  funds  who  wish  to  re-
main neutral on prostitution, sought a declaratory judgment that the
Policy Requirement violates their First Amendment rights.  The Dis-
trict Court issued a preliminary injunction, barring the Government 
from cutting off respondents’ Leadership Act funding during the liti-
gation or from otherwise taking action based on their privately funded
speech.  The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Policy Re-
quirement,  as  implemented  by  the  agencies,  violated  respondents’
freedom of speech. 

Held: The  Policy  Requirement  violates  the  First  Amendment  by  com-
pelling  as  a  condition  of  federal  funding  the  affirmation  of  a  belief
that  by  its  nature  cannot  be  confined  within  the  scope  of  the  Gov-