Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Service Employees, 567 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2012) (slip op.,
at  8–9)  (“The  government  may  not  . . .  compel  the  en-
dorsement of ideas that it approves.”).  Were it enacted as 
a  direct  regulation  of  speech,  the  Policy  Requirement
would plainly violate the First Amendment.  The question
is  whether  the  Government  may  nonetheless  impose  that
requirement as a condition on the receipt of federal funds. 

A 
The Spending Clause of the Federal Constitution grants
Congress  the  power  “[t]o  lay  and  collect  Taxes,  Duties,
Imposts  and  Excises,  to  pay  the  Debts  and  provide  for 
the  common  Defence  and  general  Welfare  of  the  United
States.”  Art.  I,  §8,  cl.  1.  The  Clause  provides  Congress
broad  discretion  to  tax  and  spend  for  the  “general  Wel-
fare,”  including  by  funding  particular  state  or  private
programs or activities.  That power includes the authority
to  impose  limits  on  the  use  of  such  funds  to  ensure  they
are  used  in  the  manner  Congress  intends.    Rust  v.  Sulli-
van,  500  U. S.  173,  195,  n. 4  (1991)  (“Congress’  power  to 
allocate  funds  for  public  purposes  includes  an  ancillary 
power  to  ensure  that  those  funds  are  properly  applied  to
the prescribed use.”). 

As a general matter, if a party objects to a condition on 
the receipt of federal funding, its recourse is to decline the 
funds.  This  remains  true  when  the  objection  is  that  a
condition  may  affect  the  recipient’s  exercise  of  its  First
Amendment  rights.  See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  American 
Library  Assn.,  Inc.,  539  U. S.  194,  212  (2003)  (plurality 
opinion)  (rejecting  a  claim  by  public  libraries  that  condi-
tioning  funds  for  Internet  access  on  the  libraries’  in-
stalling filtering software violated their First Amendment
rights, explaining that “[t]o the extent that libraries wish
to  offer  unfiltered  access,  they  are  free  to  do  so  without
federal  assistance”);  Regan  v.  Taxation  With  Representa-
tion  of  Wash.,  461  U. S.  540,  546  (1983)  (dismissing  “the