Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

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

21 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

again (and again) that speech may be attributed across cor-
porate lines in the First Amendment context—including in 
our  previous  opinion  in  this  very  case.  See  AOSI I,  570 
U. S., at 219 (concluding that speech uttered involuntarily 
by legally separate affiliates may be attributed to respond-
ents  if  the  affiliates  are  “clearly  identified”  with  respond-
ents); League of Women Voters, 468 U. S., at 400 (observing 
that  funding  conditions  that  restrict  speech  can  survive 
constitutional scrutiny if the speaker may “make known its
views  on  matters  of  public  importance  through”  a  legally 
separate affiliate—and if not, not); Regan, 461 U. S., at 544 
(similar); Rust, 500 U. S., at 196–198 (similar); Velazquez, 
531 U. S., at 546–547 (similar).  And these precedents fur-
ther  establish  that  merely  requiring  speakers  to  work
through  affiliates  is  “not  unduly  burdensome”  and  can
therefore  cure,  rather  than  create,  First  Amendment  con-
cerns.  Regan,  461  U. S.,  at  545,  n. 6.    Contra,  ante,  at  8 
(suggesting that such a requirement would be unconstitu-
tional).  Small  wonder  the  majority  can  muster  only  two
context-specific and statute-specific cases—one addressing 
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the other involving
the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act—
as affirmative support for its conclusion that corporate for-
malities  somehow  control  the  First  Amendment  question
before us.  See ante, at 5 (citing Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 
538 U. S. 468 (2003), and Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. 
v. King, 533 U. S. 158 (2001)).

The majority also attempts to distinguish the facts before
us now from the facts that were before us last time.  It as-
serts  that,  in  contrast  to  the  affiliations  we  addressed  in 
AOSI I,  respondents’  “current  affiliations  with  foreign  or-
ganizations are their own choice.”  Ante, at 8.  There are two 
problems with this.  First, the description is not accurate. 
Foreign governments—and increasingly, the U. S. Govern-
ment—often  require  respondents  to  work  through  foreign