Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

6 

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

League of Women Voters, we explained, the Policy Require-
ment affects protected speech outside the scope of the fed-
eral program.  570 U. S., at 218.  “By requiring recipients to
profess a specific belief,” it “goes beyond defining” the pro-
gram “to defining the recipient” in the eyes of their global 
audience.  Ibid.   Respondents  cannot  “avow  [a]  belief  dic-
tated by” the Government “when spending Leadership Act
funds, and then turn around and assert a contrary belief, or 
claim  neutrality,”  when  acting  on  their  “own  time  and 
dime.”  Ibid.   The  Policy  Requirement  thus  conditioned
funding  on  an  across-the-board  distortion  of  respondents’ 
message.  See ibid. 

We  further  explained  in  AOSI I—and  this  is  critical— 
why we could not accept the Government’s suggestion that 
the case was just a redux of Regan.  In AOSI I, the Govern-
ment  suggested  a  similar  “dual-structure”  solution  to  the
First  Amendment  problem.    Like  the  nonprofit  in  Regan, 
the Government noted, respondents could act (and speak) 
through two corporate entities: One organization could re-
ceive  Leadership  Act  funds  on  respondents’  behalf  (and
comply with the Policy Requirement), while a legally sepa-
rate  affiliate  could  communicate  respondents’  preferred 
message  (and  not  receive  Leadership  Act  funds)—or  vice 
versa.  AOSI I,  570  U. S.,  at  219.    True  enough.    But  we 
rejected the Government’s argument all the same. 

Why did  we reject it?   Because corporate formalities do 
nothing to ward off speech distortion where—like AOSI I, 
but unlike Regan—the Government has required a speaker 
to “espouse a specific belief as its own.”  570 U. S., at 219. 
“If the affiliate is distinct from the recipient,” we reasoned,
“the arrangement does not afford a means for the recipient 
to  express  its  beliefs.”  Ibid.   And  if  “the  affiliate  is  more 
clearly  identified  with  the  recipient,  the  recipient  can  ex-
press those beliefs only at the price of evident hypocrisy.” 
Ibid.  With respect to the latter situation, in other words,
compelling a recipient to disavow a message involuntarily