Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 
OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

merits  of  their  First  Amendment  challenge  under  this 
Court’s  “unconstitutional  conditions”  doctrine.    651  F. 3d 
218 (CA2 2011).  Under this doctrine, the court reasoned, 
“the government may not place a condition on the receipt
of  a  benefit  or  subsidy  that  infringes  upon  the  recipient’s
constitutionally  protected  rights,  even  if  the  government 
has no obligation to offer the benefit in the first instance.” 
Id.,  at  231  (citing  Perry  v.  Sindermann,  408  U. S.  593, 
597  (1972)).  And  a  condition  that  compels  recipients  “to
espouse the government’s position” on a subject of interna-
tional debate could not be squared with the First Amend-
ment.  651  F. 3d,  at  234.    The  court  concluded  that  “the 
Policy Requirement, as implemented by the Agencies, falls
well  beyond  what  the  Supreme  Court  . . .  ha[s]  upheld  as 
permissible funding conditions.”  Ibid. 

Judge  Straub  dissented,  expressing  his  view  that  the
Policy  Requirement  was  an  “entirely  rational  exercise  of 
Congress’s powers pursuant to the Spending Clause.”  Id., 
at 240. 

We granted certiorari.  568 U. S. ___ (2013). 

III 
The  Policy  Requirement  mandates  that  recipients  of
Leadership  Act  funds  explicitly  agree  with  the  Govern-
ment’s policy to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking.  It 
is, however, a basic First Amendment principle that “free-
dom  of  speech  prohibits  the  government  from  telling  peo-
ple what they must say.”  Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic 
and  Institutional  Rights,  Inc.,  547  U. S.  47,  61  (2006) 
(citing West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 
642  (1943),  and  Wooley  v.  Maynard,  430  U. S.  705,  717 
(1977)).  “At  the  heart  of  the  First  Amendment  lies  the 
principle  that  each  person  should  decide  for  himself  or
herself  the  ideas  and  beliefs  deserving  of  expression, 
consideration,  and  adherence.” 
  Turner  Broadcasting 
System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 641 (1994); see Knox v.