Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 29

16  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 
BREYER, J., dissenting 

some  other  means,  CNN  should  have  constitutional  re-
course.  Some critical foreign policy interests might compli-
cate  the  First  Amendment  calculus—say,  a  wartime  need
to keep future battle plans secret.  But nothing like that is 
present here.  And it is difficult to accept the notion that the 
First  Amendment  permits  the  Government  to  suppress,
compel, or otherwise distort any and all American speech
transmitted abroad through a clearly identified foreign af-
filiate. 

III 

The upshot is: (1) The messages at issue here belong to 
American  speakers;  (2)  clearly  identified  foreign  affiliates
are a critical means of conveying those messages overseas; 
and (3) enforcing the Policy Requirement against those af-
filiates  distorts  respondents’  own  protected  speech—and 
thus violates respondents’ own First Amendment rights.

The  majority  justifies  its  contrary  result  on  three  main 
grounds,  two  of  which  it  says  are  “bedrock  principles”  of
American law.  See ante, at 3–6, 8.  I do not find these ar-
guments persuasive. 

A 
The first “bedrock principle” on which the majority relies 
is the supposedly long-settled, across-the-board rule “that
foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights 
under the U. S. Constitution.”  Ante, at 3.  That sweeping
assertion is neither relevant to this case nor correct on the 
law. 

It is not relevant because, as I have said, this case does 
not  concern  the  constitutional  rights  of  foreign  organiza-
tions.  This case concerns the constitutional rights of Amer-
ican organizations.  Every respondent here is—and has al-
ways been—American.  AOSI I, 570 U. S., at 210; see also 
Brief for Petitioners 7, 19 (acknowledging as much).  No for-
eign entities are party to this case, and respondents have