Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 25

12  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

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

even  if  each  side  happens  to  have  been  incorporated  as  a 
separate legal entity.  See AOSI I, 570 U. S., at 219. 

A contrary approach would have led to a rather surpris-
ing result in AOSI I.  Assume for a moment that the Policy
Requirement simply commanded respondents’ clearly iden-
tified  affiliates  to  speak—the  kind  of  “direct  regulation  of 
speech”  that  we  said  “would  plainly  violate  the  First 
Amendment,” id., at 213.  Treating corporate lines as iron-
clad would mean that respondents could not object to that
direct distortion of their own message.  Under all the cases 
just discussed, however, that cannot be right.  And as dis-
cussed below, it is equally wrong under our cases involving 
speech misattribution. 

B 
The  First  Amendment  protects  speakers  from  govern-
ment compulsion that is likely to cause an audience to mis-
take  someone  else’s  message  for  the  speaker’s  own  views. 
See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U. S., at 572–573; Pacific Gas & Elec. 
Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 15–16 (1986).
Corporate  separation  makes  no  meaningful  difference  in 
this speech-misattribution context, either. 

Consider our unanimous decision in Hurley.  In that case, 
a  group  called  the  South  Boston  Allied  War  Veterans 
Council organized a parade.  515 U. S., at 560.  The Irish-
American  Gay,  Lesbian  and  Bisexual  Group  of  Boston—a 
separate  group  who  called  themselves  “GLIB”  for  short—
wanted  to  participate.  Id.,  at  561.  After  the  Veterans 
Council said no, GLIB obtained a court order directing the 
Veterans Council to let GLIB march in the parade.  Id., at 
561–562.  Recognizing that “every participating unit affects
the message conveyed by the parade organizers,” we held in 
Hurley that the order distorted the Veterans Council’s pro-
tected speech.  Id., at 572–573.  Because GLIB wanted to 
“carr[y] its own banner” with its own message, and because