Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

3 

Syllabus 

be used for prohibited purposes.  The Policy Requirement thus must
be doing something more—and it is.  By demanding that funding re-
cipients  adopt  and  espouse,  as  their  own,  the  Government’s  view  on
an issue of public concern, the Policy Requirement by its very nature
affects  “protected  conduct  outside  the  scope  of  the  federally  funded
program.”    Rust,  supra,  at  197.    A  recipient  cannot  avow  the  belief
dictated  by  the  condition  when  spending  Leadership  Act  funds,  and 
assert  a  contrary  belief  when  participating  in  activities  on  its  own 
time and dime. 

The Government suggests that if funding recipients could promote 
or condone prostitution using private funds, “it would undermine the 
government’s  program  and  confuse  its  message  opposing  prostitu-
tion.”  Brief for Petitioners 37.  But the Policy Requirement goes be-
yond  preventing  recipients  from  using  private  funds  in  a  way  that
would undermine the federal program.  It requires them to pledge al-
legiance to the Government’s policy of eradicating prostitution.  That 
condition on funding violates the First Amendment.  Pp. 11–15. 

651 F. 3d 218, affirmed. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, 
GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.  SCALIA, J., filed 
a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  THOMAS, J.,  joined.    KAGAN, J.,  took  no 
part in the consideration or decision of the case.