Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

contrast, the United States is not forcing plaintiffs to affili-
ate with foreign organizations.  Plaintiffs are free to choose 
whether to affiliate with foreign organizations and are free
to disclaim agreement with the foreign affiliates’ required 
statement of policy.  Any alleged misattribution in this case
and any effect on the American organizations’ message of
neutrality toward prostitution stems from their choice to af-
filiate  with  foreign  organizations,  not  from  U. S.  Govern-
ment  compulsion. 
Because  the  First  Amendment 
misattribution cases are premised on government compul-
sion to associate with another entity, those cases do not ap-
ply here.

In  support  of  their  misattribution  argument,  plaintiffs
also cite Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 
461  U. S.  540,  544–545,  and  n. 6  (1983).    But  as  relevant 
here, that case simply explained that a speech restriction
on  a  corporate  entity  did  not  prevent  a  separate  affiliate
from speaking, a point that is not disputed in this case.

We  appreciate  that  plaintiffs  would  prefer  to  affiliate 
with foreign organizations that do not oppose prostitution.
But Congress required foreign organizations to oppose pros-
titution in return for American funding.  And plaintiffs can-
not export their own First Amendment rights to shield for-
eign organizations from Congress’s funding conditions.

Stressing that their position is limited, plaintiffs empha-
size that the Court could narrowly decide to protect the free
speech  rights  of  only  those  foreign  organizations  that  are 
closely identified  with  American organizations—for exam-
ple, those foreign affiliates that share similar names, logos, 
and  brands  with  American  organizations.    According  to 
plaintiffs,  those  “closely  identified”  scenarios  greatly  in-
crease  the  risk  of  misattribution.  But  again,  the  First
Amendment  cases  involving  speech  misattribution  arose 
when the State forced one speaker to host another speaker’s 
speech.  No compulsion is present here.  Moreover, plain-
tiffs’  proposed  line-drawing  among  foreign  organizations