Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Amendment and seeking to bar the Government from en-
forcing  the  Policy  Requirement  against  plaintiffs’  legally 
distinct foreign affiliates.  The U. S. District Court for the 
Southern  District  of  New  York  agreed  with  plaintiffs  and 
prohibited  the  Government  from  enforcing  the  Policy  Re-
quirement  against  plaintiffs’  foreign  affiliates.    The  U. S. 
Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Second  Circuit  affirmed.    Judge 
Straub dissented.  He described as “startling” the proposi-
tion that the First Amendment could extend to foreign or-
ganizations  operating  abroad.    911  F. 3d  104,  112  (2018). 
The  Second  Circuit’s  decision  was  stayed  pending  this 
Court’s  review,  meaning  that  foreign  organizations  cur-
rently remain subject to the Policy Requirement.

We granted certiorari, 589 U. S. ___ (2019), and now re-
verse the judgment of the Second Circuit.  Plaintiffs’ posi-
tion runs headlong into two bedrock principles of American
law. 

First, it is long settled as a matter of American constitu-
tional law that foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not 
possess  rights  under  the  U. S.  Constitution.    Plaintiffs  do 
not  dispute  that  fundamental  principle.    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg. 
58–59; see, e.g., Boumediene  v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 770– 
771  (2008);  Hamdi  v.  Rumsfeld,  542  U. S.  507,  558–559 
(2004) (Scalia, J., dissenting); United States v. Verdugo-Ur-
quidez,  494  U. S.  259,  265–275  (1990);  Johnson  v.  Eisen-
trager,  339  U. S.  763,  784  (1950);  United  States  ex  rel. 
Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 292 (1904); U. S. Const., 
Preamble. 

As  the  Court  has  recognized,  foreign  citizens  in  the 
United  States  may  enjoy  certain  constitutional  rights—to 
take just one example, the right to due process in a criminal
trial.  See,  e.g.,  Verdugo-Urquidez,  494  U. S.,  at  270–271; 
Plyler  v.  Doe,  457  U. S.  202,  210–213  (1982);  Kwong  Hai 
Chew  v.  Colding,  344  U. S.  590,  596  (1953);  Bridges  v. 
Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 148 (1945); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 
U. S.  356,  369  (1886);  cf.  Bluman  v.  Federal  Election