Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–177 
_________________ 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN 
SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[June 29, 2020] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
I agree with the Court that the Policy Requirement does
not violate the First Amendment as applied to respondents’
foreign  affiliates,  and  I  agree  that  nothing  about  this 
Court’s decision in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance 
for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U. S. 205 (2013) (AOSI I),
suggests otherwise.  See ante, at 8–9.  I write separately to
note  my  continued  disagreement  with  AOSI  I  and  to  ex-
plain that the Policy Requirement does not violate the First
Amendment for a far simpler reason: It does not compel an-
yone to say anything.

In AOSI I, the Court erred by holding that the Policy Re-
quirement  violated  respondents’  First  Amendment  rights
by  conditioning  their  receipt  of  Leadership  Act*  funds  on 
the  affirmation  of  certain  program  objectives.    “The  First 
Amendment does not mandate a viewpoint-neutral govern-
ment.”  AOSI  I,  570  U. S.,  at  221  (Scalia,  J.,  joined  by 
THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting).  Thus,  the  Government  may  re-
quire those who seek to carry out federally funded programs 

—————— 

* As  the  Court  explains,  the  United  States  Leadership  Against 
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Leadership Act), 22
U. S. C. §7601 et seq., “allocate[s] billions of dollars to American and for-
eign  nongovernmental  organizations  that  combat  HIV/AIDS  abroad.” 
Ante, at 1.