Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

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

that because a foreign affiliate’s policy statement may be attributed to 
them, American organizations themselves possess a First Amendment 
right against the Policy Requirement’s imposition on their foreign af-
filiates.  First Amendment cases involving speech misattribution be-
tween  formally  distinct  speakers,  see,  e.g.,  Hurley  v.  Irish-American 
Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574– 
575, however, are premised on something missing here: Government
compulsion to associate with another entity.  Even protecting the free
speech rights of only those foreign organizations that are closely iden-
tified with American organizations would deviate from the fundamen-
tal principle that foreign organizations operating abroad do not pos-
sess  rights  under  the  U. S.  Constitution  and  enmesh  the  courts  in
difficult  line-drawing  exercises.    Second,  plaintiffs  assert  that  the 
Court’s 2013 decision encompassed both American organizations and 
their  foreign  affiliates.    That  decision  did  not  facially  invalidate  the 
Act’s  funding  condition,  suggest  that  the  First  Amendment  requires 
the Government to exempt plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates or other foreign 
organizations  from  the  Policy  Requirement,  or  purport  to  override 
longstanding constitutional law and corporate law principles.  Pp. 3– 
9. 

911 F. 3d 104, reversed. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed a 
concurring opinion.  BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINS-
BURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.  KAGAN, J., took no part in the consid-
eration or decision of the case.