Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

20  AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 

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

445 (1988); Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reser-
vation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467 U. S. 138, 158 (1984); 
United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21 (1960); Liverpool, 
New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Em-
igration, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885). 

B 
The  majority’s  second  supposedly  “bedrock  principle”  is
that “separately incorporated organizations are separate le-
gal units with distinct legal rights and obligations.”  Ante, 
at 5.  Sometimes true, sometimes not.  This baseline rule 
gives  way  in  many  contexts,  and  our  First  Amendment 
precedents (including AOSI I ) refute any suggestion that a
workaday principle of corporate law somehow resolves the 
constitutional issue here in dispute.

As  the  majority  acknowledges,  corporate  law  itself  per-
mits courts to pierce or otherwise disregard the corporate 
veil  in  a  variety  of  circumstances.    See  ante,  at  5.  Those 
narrow exceptions, however, are not the only time the law 
looks  past  corporate  formalities.  For  instance,  we  have 
treated “several nominally separate business entities” as “a
single employer” for purposes of federal labor law.  Radio & 
Television Technicians v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 
380 U. S. 255, 256 (1965) (per curiam).  Earlier this Term, 
we reaffirmed that one corporate entity may sometimes in-
voke the right of another, legally separate entity to compel 
arbitration.  See GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS 
v.  Outokumpu  Stainless  USA,  LLC,  590  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2020) (slip op., at 4).  And these are far from the only rele-
vant examples.  See, e.g., American Needle, Inc. v. National 
Football League, 560 U. S. 183, 196 (2010) (observing that, 
in many antitrust cases, corporate formalities are “not de-
terminative”).

More to the point, our First Amendment precedents leave
no doubt that corporate formalities have little to say about
the  issue  now  before  us.  We  have  made  clear  again  and