Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

permitted to work with affiliated organizations that do not 
abide  by  the  condition,  as  long  as  the  recipients  retain
“objective integrity and independence” from the unfettered
affiliates.  45  CFR  §89.3.  The  Government  suggests  the
guidelines  alleviate  any  unconstitutional  burden  on  the 
respondents’ First Amendment rights by allowing them to 
either: (1) accept Leadership Act funding and comply with
Policy  Requirement,  but  establish  affiliates  to  communi-
cate contrary views on prostitution; or (2) decline funding
themselves  (thus  remaining  free  to  express  their  own 
views  or  remain  neutral),  while  creating  affiliates  whose 
sole  purpose  is  to  receive  and  administer  Leadership  Act 
funds,  thereby  “cabin[ing]  the  effects”  of  the  Policy  Re-
quirement within the scope of the federal program.  Brief 
for Petitioners 38–39, 44–49. 

Neither approach is sufficient.  When we have noted the 
importance of affiliates in this context, it has been because 
they allow an organization bound by a funding condition to
exercise  its  First  Amendment  rights  outside  the  scope  of
the federal program.  See Rust, supra, at 197–198.  Affili-
ates cannot serve that purpose when the condition is that 
a funding recipient espouse a specific belief as its own.  If 
the affiliate is distinct from the recipient, the arrangement 
does  not  afford  a  means  for  the  recipient  to  express  its 
beliefs.  If  the  affiliate  is  more  clearly  identified  with  the 
recipient,  the  recipient  can  express  those  beliefs  only  at
the price of evident hypocrisy.  The guidelines themselves 
make  that  clear.  See  45  CFR  §89.3  (allowing  funding 
recipients to work with affiliates whose conduct is “incon-
sistent  with  the  recipient’s  opposition  to  the  practices  of 
prostitution and sex trafficking” (emphasis added)). 

The  Government  suggests  that  the  Policy  Requirement 
is necessary because, without it, the grant of federal funds 
could  free  a  recipient’s  private  funds  “to  be  used  to  pro-
mote prostitution or sex trafficking.”  Brief for Petitioners 
27  (citing  Holder  v.  Humanitarian  Law  Project,  561  U. S.