Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 15

12  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

ever  purpose  the  Policy  Requirement  serves  in  selecting 
funding  recipients,  its  effects  go  beyond  selection.    The 
Policy  Requirement  is  an  ongoing  condition  on  recipients’ 
speech  and  activities,  a  ground  for  terminating  a  grant
after  selection  is  complete.  See  AAPD  12–04,  at  12.    In 
any  event,  as  the  Government  acknowledges,  it  is  not 
simply  seeking  organizations  that  oppose  prostitution. 
Reply  Brief  5.  Rather,  it  explains,  “Congress  has  ex-
pressed  its  purpose  ‘to  eradicate’  prostitution  and  sex
trafficking,  22  U. S. C.  §7601(23),  and  it  wants  recipients 
to  adopt  a  similar  stance.”    Brief  for  Petitioners  32  (em-
phasis  added).  This  case  is  not  about  the  Government’s 
ability  to  enlist  the  assistance  of  those  with  whom  it  al-
ready  agrees.    It  is  about  compelling  a  grant  recipient  to 
adopt a particular belief as a condition of funding.

By  demanding  that  funding  recipients  adopt—as  their
own—the  Government’s  view  on  an  issue  of  public  con-
cern,  the  condition  by  its  very  nature  affects  “protected
conduct  outside  the  scope  of  the  federally  funded  pro-
gram.”  Rust,  500  U. S.,  at  197.  A  recipient  cannot  avow
the belief dictated by the Policy Requirement when spend-
ing  Leadership  Act  funds,  and  then  turn  around  and 
assert a contrary belief, or claim neutrality, when partici-
pating in activities on its own time and dime.  By requir-
ing  recipients  to  profess  a  specific  belief,  the  Policy 
Requirement goes beyond defining the limits of the federally
funded  program  to  defining  the  recipient.    See  ibid.  (“our
‘unconstitutional  conditions’  cases  involve  situations  in 
which  the  Government  has  placed  a  condition  on  the 
recipient  of  the  subsidy  rather  than  on  a  particular  pro-
gram  or  service,  thus  effectively  prohibiting  the  recipient 
from  engaging  in  the  protected  conduct  outside  the  scope 
of the federally funded program”).

The  Government  contends  that  the  affiliate  guidelines,
established  while  this  litigation  was  pending,  save  the 
program.  Under  those  guidelines,  funding  recipients  are