Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 19

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

1 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–10 
_________________ 

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 20, 2013]

 JUSTICE  SCALIA,  with  whom  JUSTICE  THOMAS  joins,

dissenting. 

The Leadership Act provides that “any group or organi-
zation  that  does  not  have  a  policy  explicitly  opposing 
prostitution  and  sex  trafficking”  may  not  receive  funds 
appropriated  under  the  Act.    22  U. S. C.  §7631(f).    This 
Policy  Requirement  is  nothing  more  than  a  means  of
selecting  suitable  agents  to  implement  the  Government’s
chosen strategy  to eradicate HIV/AIDS.   That is perfectly 
permissible under the Constitution.

The  First  Amendment  does  not  mandate  a  viewpoint-
neutral  government.    Government  must  choose  between 
rival  ideas  and  adopt  some  as  its  own:  competition  over 
cartels,  solar  energy  over  coal,  weapon  development  over 
disarmament,  and  so  forth.  Moreover,  the  government
may enlist the assistance of those who believe in its ideas
to  carry  them  to  fruition;  and  it  need  not  enlist  for  that
purpose  those  who  oppose  or  do  not  support  the  ideas. 
That  seems  to  me  a  matter  of  the  most  common  common 
sense.  For  example:  One  of  the  purposes  of  America’s 
foreign-aid  programs  is  the  fostering  of  good  will  towards 
this country.  If the organization Hamas—reputed to have 
an  efficient  system  for  delivering  welfare—were  excluded 
from  a  program  for  the  distribution  of  U. S.  food  assis-