Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 23

10  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 
BREYER, J., dissenting 

ment-compelled distortion in the eyes of those foreign audi-
ences, as well as listeners here at home.  Ibid.  Yet in the 
wake  of  our  ruling,  respondents  have  continued  to  suffer 
that exact same First Amendment harm. 

True,  respondents’  international  mission  sometimes  re-
quires that they convey their message through affiliates in-
corporated in far-off countries, rather than registered here
at  home.  But  so  what?  Audiences  everywhere  attribute 
speech based on whom they perceive to be speaking, not on 
corporate paperwork they will never see.  What mattered in 
AOSI I was thus how “clearly identified” the affiliates were
with respondents, not the fact that the affiliates were incor-
porated as separate legal entities.  Ibid.  And what matters 
now is once again how “clearly identified” the affiliates are
with respondents, not the fact that the affiliates were incor-
porated as foreign legal entities.

The First Amendment question therefore hinges, as it did 
before, on what an objective observer sees, hears, and un-
derstands  when  respondents  speak  through  their  foreign
affiliates.  As to that, not even the Government meaning-
fully disputes that respondents and their foreign affiliates
are clearly identified with one another.  Their appearances 
are the same.  Their goals are the same.  Their values are 
the same.  Their message is the same.  Leveraging Congress’ 
spending  power  to  demand  speech  from  respondents’  for-
eign  affiliates  distorts  that  shared  message—and  violates 
respondents’  First  Amendment  rights.    So  while  respond-
ents  and  their  clearly  identified  foreign  affiliates  may  be
technically  different  entities  with respect  to  such  matters
as contracts, taxes, and torts, they are constitutionally the 
same speaker when it comes to the protected speech at is-
sue in this case. 

This two-entities-one-speaker principle is an established 
part of our First Amendment jurisprudence.  Take Regan.
To refresh, in that case we upheld a ban on engaging in cer-
tain  protected  speech  (lobbying)  that  the  federal  tax  code