Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

implementation  of  the  Policy  Requirement  violated  their 
First  Amendment  rights.    Respondents  sought  a  pre- 
liminary  injunction  barring  the  Government  from  cut-
ting  off  their  funding  under  the  Act  for  the  duration  of 
the litigation, from unilaterally terminating their coopera-
tive agreements with the United States, or from otherwise
taking  action  solely  on  the  basis  of  respondents’  own  pri-
vately  funded  speech.    The  District  Court  granted  such  a 
preliminary injunction, and the Government appealed.

While the appeal was pending, HHS and USAID issued 
guidelines on how recipients of Leadership Act funds could 
retain funding while working with affiliated organizations
not  bound  by  the  Policy  Requirement.    The  guidelines  per-
mit  funding  recipients  to  work  with  affiliated  organiza-
tions  that  “engage[ ]  in  activities  inconsistent  with  the 
recipient’s  opposition  to  the  practices  of  prostitution  and 
sex  trafficking”  as  long  as  the  recipients  retain  “objective
integrity  and  independence  from  any  affiliated  organiza-
tion.”  45  CFR  §89.3;  see  also  AAPD  12–04,  at  6–7. 
Whether sufficient separation exists is determined by the
totality  of  the  circumstances,  including  “but  not  . . .  lim-
ited to” (1) whether the organizations are legally separate; 
(2)  whether  they  have  separate  personnel;  (3)  whether
they  keep  separate  accounting  records;  (4)  the  degree  of
separation  in  the  organizations’  facilities;  and  (5)  the 
extent  to  which  signs  and  other  forms  of  identification 
distinguish  the  organizations.  45  CFR  §§89.3(b)(1)–(5); 
see also AAPD 12–04, at 6–7. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  summarily  remanded  the  case  to 
the  District  Court  to  consider  whether  the  preliminary
injunction was still appropriate in light of the new guide-
lines.  On remand, the District Court issued a new prelim-
inary injunction along the same lines as the first, and the
Government renewed its appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that respond-
ents  had  demonstrated  a  likelihood  of  success  on  the