Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

14  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

1,  ___–___  (2010)  (slip  op.,  at  25–26)).    That  argument 
assumes that federal funding will simply supplant private
funding,  rather  than  pay  for  new  programs  or  expand 
existing ones.  The Government offers no support for that
assumption as a general matter, or any reason to believe it
is  true  here.  And  if  the  Government’s  argument  were 
correct,  League  of  Women  Voters  would  have  come  out 
differently, and much of the reasoning of Regan and Rust 
would have been beside the point. 

The  Government  cites  but  one  case  to  support  that 
argument,  Holder  v.  Humanitarian  Law  Project.  That 
case  concerned  the  quite  different  context  of  a  ban  on 
providing  material  support  to  terrorist  organizations,
where  the  record  indicated  that  support  for  those  organi-
zations’  nonviolent  operations  was  funneled  to  support 
their violent activities.  561 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). 

Pressing  its  argument  further,  the  Government  con-
tends  that  “if  organizations  awarded  federal  funds  to 
implement  Leadership  Act  programs  could  at  the  same
time  promote  or  affirmatively  condone  prostitution  or  sex 
trafficking, whether using public or private funds, it would 
undermine  the  government’s  program  and  confuse  its 
message opposing prostitution and sex  trafficking.”   Brief 
for  Petitioners  37  (emphasis  added).  But  the  Policy  Re-
quirement  goes  beyond  preventing  recipients  from  using
private  funds  in  a  way  that  would  undermine  the  federal 
program. 
It  requires  them  to  pledge  allegiance  to  the
Government’s  policy  of  eradicating  prostitution.    As  to 
that, we cannot improve upon what Justice Jackson wrote
for the Court 70 years ago: “If there is any fixed star in our 
constitutional  constellation,  it  is  that  no  official,  high  or 
petty,  can  prescribe  what  shall  be  orthodox  in  politics,
nationalism,  religion,  or  other  matters  of  opinion  or  force 
citizens  to  confess  by  word  or  act  their  faith  therein.” 
Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642.