Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 632.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

587

Opinion of the Court

ater Artist Fellowships).) Thus, we have no occasion here
to address an as-applied challenge in a situation where the
denial of a grant may be shown to be the product of invidious
viewpoint discrimination.
If the NEA were to leverage its
power to award subsidies on the basis of subjective criteria
into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints, then we would con-
front a different case. We have stated that, even in the pro-
vision of subsidies, the Government may not “ai[m] at the
suppression of dangerous ideas,” Regan v. Taxation with
Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 550 (1983) (internal
quotation marks omitted), and if a subsidy were “manipu-
lated” to have a “coercive effect,” then relief could be appro-
priate. See Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481
U. S. 221, 237 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also Leath-
ers v. Medlock, 499 U. S. 439, 447 (1991) (“[D]ifferential taxa-
tion of First Amendment speakers is constitutionally suspect
when it threatens to suppress the expression of particular
ideas or viewpoints”).
In addition, as the NEA itself con-
cedes, a more pressing constitutional question would arise if
Government funding resulted in the imposition of a dispro-
portionate burden calculated to drive “certain ideas or view-
points from the marketplace.” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v.
Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105,
116 (1991); see Brief
for Petitioners 38, n. 12. Unless
§ 954(d)(1) is applied in a manner that raises concern about
the suppression of disfavored viewpoints, however, we up-
hold the constitutionality of the provision. Cf. Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 396 (1969) (“[W]e
will not now pass upon the constitutionality of these regula-
tions by envisioning the most extreme applications conceiv-
able, but will deal with those problems if and when they
arise” (citation omitted)).

B

Finally, although the First Amendment certainly has ap-
plication in the subsidy context, we note that the Govern-
ment may allocate competitive funding according to criteria