Opinion ID: 220365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The District Court's Second Decision

Text: On remand, AOSI and Pathfinder moved to amend the complaint to add Global Health Council and InterAction (together, the Associations) as plaintiffs, and to extend the preliminary injunction to cover the Associations. GHC is an alliance of organizations dedicated to international public health. InterAction is an alliance of international development and humanitarian NGOs. Many of the Associations' U.S.-based members  which include Pathfinder, a member of both GHC and InterAction  participate in the international fight against HIV/AIDS, receive Leadership Act funding, are therefore subject to the Policy Requirement, and desire relief from it. These member organizations' HIV/AIDS-prevention work includes administering health services and other programs that expressly target at-risk groups like prostitutes. They also engage in advocacy and discussion concerning controversial global health issues  for example, best practices for reducing HIV/AIDS among prostitutes  at policy forums and conferences. In August 2008, the district court permitted GHC and InterAction to join the litigation, extended the preliminary injunction to them, and went on to consider whether interlocutory relief continued to be warranted in light of the Guidelines. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 570 F.Supp.2d 533 (S.D.N.Y.2008) ( Alliance III ). The court held that it was, concluding that the Guidelines did not affect its previous determination that the Policy Requirement impermissibly compelled speech. The court reasoned that [w]hile the Guidelines may or may not provide an adequate alternate channel for Plaintiffs to express their views regarding prostitution, the clause requiring them to espouse the government's viewpoint remains intact. Id. It also concluded that heightened scrutiny remained applicable because the Policy Requirement discriminates based on viewpoint, and that the Guidelines were too burdensome to cure the Requirement's constitutional defects. Id. at 546-49. Accordingly, the court declined to disturb its preliminary injunction. Defendants appealed from both the 2006 and 2008 preliminary injunction orders.