Agency for International Development, et al. v. Alliance for Open Society International, et al., No. 19-177 (June 29, 2020).
Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. In 2003, the United States determined that certain recipients of federal funding for international public health initiatives must have an express policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, known as the Leadership Act. 117 Stat. 711, as amended, 22 U. S. C. §7601 et seq.
In 2013, the Supreme Court agreed with the Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) that the Policy Requirement, as it came to be known, imposed an unconstitutional condition on AOSI’s First Amendment rights.
The Policy Requirement remained in effect against AOSI’s separate foreign affiliates, resulting in the present challenge.
The Court acknowledged that foreign citizens in the United States may enjoy some constitutional protections. The U.S. Constitution may also apply in U.S. territories or places wholly controlled by the U.S. government. The U.S. may enact legislation granting rights against the U.S. abroad or giving U.S. citizens abroad certain rights, but the government is generally otherwise constrained against attempting to affect activities abroad.
The law traditionally holds that separate corporations have separate rights and responsibilities. The separate corporations in issue here were incorporated outside the U.S. and, although affiliated, are distinct from the U.S. corporations.
The Court held that the United States, which. provides more foreign aid than any nation on earth, may do so by applying conditions such as those in issue here mandating that aid recipients as a matter of policy condemn sex trafficking and prostition.
Foreign corporations operating abroad enjoy no First Amendment rights.
In light of both principles, the plaintiffs cannot complain of constitutional error in requiring the Policy Statement of foreign entities.
Arguments about speech misattribution fail because the cases cited by plaintiffs concern forced affiliations, whie the choice of affiliations here are wholly voluntary. Plaintiffs are free to affiliate as they please and they may disclaim support for the policy statements that their foreign affiliates must make.
Justice Thomas concurred to restate his discontent with the “forced speech” holding of the 2013 case. Justice Thomas observed that the Constitution does not compel a viewpoint neutral government nor does conditioning funds tied to affirmations of a belief involve compulsion where entities are free to decide not to apply for or participate in federal funding. The First Amendment does not protect the conditions in issue at all, without reference to the domestic or international status of the corporation or its affiliates.
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, asserting that the First Amendment rights of the U.S. entities and not the foreign corporations are in issue. By asking the wrong question, they observe, the Court arrives at the wrong answer
Where close affiliates are concerned, answers to questions of compelled speech ought not be distinguished based on whether the affiliated entities are domestic or foreign. If the government demands speech contrary to the speaker’s message, the mechanism for so doing cannot cure the constitutional infirmity.
The aim of the domestic corporations is to speak abroad. From a structural standpoint, It ought not matter how this is accomplished. Moreover, the impact of the present decision on U.S. media abroad cannot be disregarded.
The issue of the territorial reach of the U.S. Constitution is of no moment because exploration of the issue comes in response to the wrong question. The speech rights of domestic corporations with respect to closely identified foreign affiliates, not the foreign affiliates in themselves, are in issue. Additionally, the idea that separate corporations are inviolably so is contrary to law, which can and does at times disregard corporate forms and recognize close corporate relationships.
U.S. A.I.D. v. Alliance for Open Society No.19-177 S.Ct. June 29 2020