Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 
OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 
Opinion of the Court 

a  foreign  organization’s  ideological  commitments—for  ex-
ample, pro-democracy, pro-women’s rights, anti-terrorism, 
pro-religious freedom, anti-sex trafficking, or the like.  Do-
ing so helps ensure that U. S. foreign aid serves U. S. inter-
ests.  By contrast, plaintiffs’ approach would throw a con-
In 
stitutional  wrench  into  American  foreign  policy. 
particular,  plaintiffs’ approach would put Congress in the 
untenable position of either cutting off certain funding pro-
grams altogether, or instead funding foreign organizations 
that may not align with U. S. values.  We see no constitu-
tional justification for the Federal Judiciary to interfere in 
that fashion with American foreign policy and American aid 
to foreign organizations.

In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organiza-
tions, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no
First Amendment rights. 

To overcome that conclusion, plaintiffs advance two main 

arguments.  But neither persuades us. 

First,  plaintiffs  theorize  that  the  foreign  affiliates’  re-
quired statement of policy against prostitution and sex traf-
ficking  may  be  incorrectly  attributed  to  the  American  or-
ganizations.  Therefore,  the  theory  goes,  the  American 
organizations themselves possess a First Amendment right
against imposition of the Policy Requirement on their for-
eign affiliates.

As support, plaintiffs point to First Amendment cases in-
volving  speech  misattribution  between  formally  distinct 
speakers.  See, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian 
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574–575 
(1995);  Pacific  Gas  &  Elec.  Co.  v.  Public  Util.  Comm’n  of 
Cal.,  475  U. S.  1,  15  (1986)  (plurality  opinion);  cf.  Prune-
Yard  Shopping  Center  v.  Robins,  447  U. S.  74,  87  (1980). 
But  the  constitutional  issue  in  those  cases  arose  because 
the  State  forced  one  speaker  to  host  another  speaker’s 
speech.  See Hurley, 515 U. S., at 572–573; Pacific Gas, 475 
U. S., at 15; cf. PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 85, 87.  Here, by