Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 
OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 
Opinion of the Court 

dition  on  funding,  known  as  the  Policy  Requirement,  be-
cause Congress found that prostitution and sex trafficking 
“are  additional  causes  of  and  factors  in  the  spread  of  the 
HIV/AIDS epidemic” and that prostitution and sex traffick-
ing “are degrading to women and children.”  §7601(23).

Plaintiffs  are  American  nongovernmental  organizations
that  receive  Leadership  Act  funds  to  fight  HIV/AIDS
abroad.  Plaintiffs  have  long  maintained  that  they  do  not
want  to  express  their  agreement  with  the  American  com-
mitment to eradicating prostitution.  Plaintiffs consider a 
public stance of neutrality toward prostitution more helpful 
to their sensitive work in some parts of the world and also 
to  their  full  participation  in  the  global  efforts  to  prevent 
HIV/AIDS.

After  enactment  of  the  Leadership  Act,  plaintiffs  chal-
lenged the Policy Requirement, alleging that it violated the 
First Amendment.  In 2013, this Court agreed, concluding 
that  the  Policy  Requirement  ran  afoul  of  the  free  speech 
principle that the Government “may not deny a benefit to a 
person  on  a  basis  that  infringes  his  constitutionally  pro-
tected . . . freedom of speech.”  Agency for Int’l Development 
v.  Alliance  for  Open  Society  Int’l,  Inc.,  570  U. S.  205,  214 
(2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Therefore, the 
Policy Requirement no longer applies to American organi-
zations  that  receive  Leadership  Act  funds,  meaning  that 
American  organizations  can  obtain  Leadership  Act  funds
even if they do not have a policy explicitly opposing prosti-
tution and sex trafficking. 

But as has been the case since 2003, foreign organizations
that receive Leadership Act funds remain subject to the Pol-
icy Requirement and still must have a policy explicitly op-
posing  prostitution  and  sex  trafficking.    Following  this 
Court’s 2013 decision barring the Government from enforc-
ing  the  Policy  Requirement  against  American  organiza-
tions,  plaintiffs  returned  to  court,  invoking  the  First