Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 35

22  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 
BREYER, J., dissenting 

affiliates.  See, e.g., App. 368, 373–375.  Second, even if re-
spondents’  associations  with  foreign  affiliates  were  volun-
tary, it would not solve the First Amendment problem. 

In Wooley, for example, it was the drivers’ choice to own 
a car, but that did not mean they could be compelled to con-
vey the Government’s message on their car’s license plate.
See 430 U. S., at 717.  And in Hurley, as explained, the Gov-
ernment would have violated the parade organizers’ First 
Amendment rights just the same if it had compelled speech
from  a  previously  invited  marcher,  whether  human,  ani-
mal, or droid.  See supra, at 13–14.  Can the majority really
mean to suggest otherwise, simply because the parade or-
ganizers’  decision  to  invite  the  marcher  in  the  first  place
was “their own choice”? 

C 
The  majority  also  makes  two  practical  arguments,  but
neither justifies the First Amendment costs of its decision. 
The majority first says that a ruling in respondents’ favor
would  disrupt  American  foreign  policy  by  requiring  the
Government to fund “organizations that may not align with
U. S. values.”  Ante, at 6.  We dismissed this same concern 
in AOSI I.  The Policy Requirement, we explained, does not 
merely help the Government “enlist the assistance of those 
with whom it already agrees.”  AOSI I, 570 U. S., at 218.  It 
pressures funding recipients “to adopt a particular belief.” 
Ibid. (emphasis added).  All that is at stake here, in other 
words, is whether the Government may leverage the power
of the purse to win converts to its cause.  That bare desire 
to regulate protected speech is far from any foreign policy
interest  that  could  conceivably  overcome  a  speaker’s
First  Amendment  right  to  convey  its  message  free  from 
government-compelled distortion.  Cf. New York Times Co. 
v. United States, 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam).

The  majority  also  fears  that  determining  whether  Gov-
ernment action creates a risk of speech misattribution (and