Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

23 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

with it speech distortion) is a “legally unmoored” standard
rife with “difficult line-drawing exercises.”  Ante, at 8.  But 
we have drawn just this kind of line many times.  See, e.g., 
PruneYard, 447 U. S., at 87 (holding that “views expressed 
by  members  of  the  public”  in  a  privately  owned  shopping 
mall “will not likely be identified with those of the owner”); 
Hurley, 515 U. S., at 572 (holding that a marcher’s message
will  likely  be  attributed  to  the  parade  organizer’s,  since 
“every participating unit” in a parade “affects the [overall]
message”);  FAIR,  547  U. S.,  at  65  (holding  that  nothing
about having military recruiters on campus “suggests that
law schools agree with any speech by recruiters”).  I should 
think  that  the  price  of  making  difficult  judgment  calls  is
well worth paying to protect First Amendment rights.  See 
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U. S. 185, 209 
(2014);  Lloyd  Corp.  v.  Tanner,  407  U. S.  551,  570  (1972). 
And “on the facts presented in this case,” at any rate, “the
answer is clear.”  Id., at 570.  Enforcing the Policy Require-
ment violates respondents’ First Amendment rights, just as 
it did before. 

* 

* 

* 
The Court today concludes that respondents’ foreign af-
filiates “do not have a First Amendment right to disregard 
the  Policy  Requirement.”  Ante,  at  9.  Respondents  have 
never argued otherwise.  Rather, throughout this litigation 
they  have  asserted  their  own  First  Amendment  right  to
speak their mind, rather than the Government’s message.
Here, respondents claim First Amendment protection when 
they speak through foreign affiliates to address audiences
abroad.  By denying respondents that protection, I fear the 
Court’s decision will seriously impede the countless Ameri-
can speakers who communicate overseas in a similar way. 
That weakens the marketplace of ideas at a time when the 
value  of  that  marketplace  for  Americans,  and  for  others, 
reaches well beyond our shores.  With respect, I dissent.