Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

compelling a clearly identified domestic affiliate to espouse
a government message distorts respondents’ own protected 
speech, AOSI I, 570 U. S., at 219, so too does compelling a 
clearly identified foreign affiliate to espouse the same gov-
ernment message.  Either way, federal funding conditioned 
on that affirmative avowal of belief comes at an unconstitu-
tionally high “price of evident hypocrisy.”  Ibid. 

Properly  understood,  our  speech-misattribution  cases—
in particular Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bi-
sexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995)—confirm 
that common-sense conclusion.  Any other result would un-
dermine  First  Amendment  protections  for  the  countless 
American speakers who address audiences overseas. 

A 

Respondents  should  prevail  here  for  the  same  reasons 
they prevailed in AOSI I.  When respondents speak through
legally  separate  but  clearly  identified  affiliates,  we  held, 
that speech is attributed to respondents for First Amend-
ment  purposes.  AOSI I,  570  U. S.,  at  219.    So  when  the 
Government demands as a condition of federal funding that
their clearly identified affiliate “espouse a specific belief as
its own,” respondents may express a contrary view through 
some  other  corporate  channel  only  on  pain  of  appearing 
hypocritical.  Ibid.  Leveraging Congress’ Article I spending 
power to distort respondents’ protected speech in this way
therefore  violates  respondents’  First  Amendment  rights—
whatever else might be said about the affiliate’s own First 
Amendment rights (or asserted lack thereof ).  Ibid. 

These principles apply with full force to the dispute now 
before us.  Respondents and their affiliates receive federal 
funding  to  fight  HIV/AIDS  overseas.  What  has  been  at 
stake  in  this  case  from  the  beginning,  then,  is  protected 
speech  often  aimed  at  audiences  abroad.    Our  decision  in 
AOSI I  shielded  respondents’  global  message  from  govern-