USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International (2020)

Last updated

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided June 29, 2020
Full case nameAgency for International Development, et al. v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., et al.
Docket no. 19-177
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 2082
Case history
Prior
  • Permanent injunction granted, Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 106 F. Supp. 3d 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2015);
  • Affirmed, 911 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2018);
  • Cert. granted, 140 S.Ct. 660 (2019).
Holding
Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), also known as AOSI II (to distinguish it from the 2013 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that compelled speech required as a condition for funding on foreign non-governmental affiliates of U.S. non-government organizations does not violate First Amendment rights. [1]

Contents

Background

The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 was signed into law as a means to fund private non-governmental organizations (NGO) to help fight AIDS and other diseases in foreign countries. As a condition of this funding, entities were required to also promote an anti-prostitution pledge requiring them to establish "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking", a term known as the Policy Requirement. [2] This program is overseen through the United States Agency for International Development, the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This Policy Requirement was originally challenged by an NGO looking to receive the funding as early as 2005 as it was seen as compelled speech, which violated their First Amendment rights and resulted in the 2013 Supreme Court case AOSI I , which ruled that the anti-prostitution pledge was compelled speech on American NGOs to mirror the government's view. [3]

Following the 2013 decision, the government subsequently backed off the Policy Requirement for those NGOs based in the United States, but maintained the requirement for affiliates that were established in a foreign country. Several of the same NGOs on the 2013 case again filed suit on the First Amendment grounds and following the Supreme Court's decision. In both the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [4] and United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, [5] the courts upheld in favor of the NGOs on the basis of the Supreme Court's prior ruling.

Supreme Court

The responsible government organizations petitioned the Supreme Court, which accepted to hear the case in August 2019. Oral arguments were heard on May 5, 2020, part of the first set of arguments to be held by teleconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Elena Kagan, who took no part in the 2013 decision, also did not participate here.

The Court issued its opinion on June 29, 2020. The 5–3 majority decision reversed the Second Circuit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the major opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that two factors affect the Court's judgment. First, the foreign affiliates are legally separate entities from the American NGOs, and secondly, "because foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, those foreign organizations do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the policy requirement." [6]

In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas expressed his "continued disagreement" of the 2013 Court decision, stating the federal government's rule "does not violate the First Amendment for a far simpler reason: It does not compel anyone to say anything." [7]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Breyer wrote that the foreign NGOs were clearly extensions of the American NGOs, and that the American NGOs "speak[s] through clearly identified affiliates that have been incorporated overseas" as his reason to apply the same 2013 decision to those foreign NGOs. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief</span> United States governmental initiative

The United States President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the global health funding by the United States to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and help save the lives of those suffering from the disease. The U.S. allocation of over $110 billion marks the largest investment by any country has ever made towards combating a single disease. Launched by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2003, as of May 2020, PEPFAR has provided cumulative funding for HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention, and research since its inception, making it the largest global health program focused on a single disease in history until the COVID-19 pandemic. PEPFAR is implemented by a combination of U.S. government agencies in over 50 countries and overseen by the Global AIDS Coordinator at the United States Department of State. As of 2023, PEPFAR has saved over 25 million lives, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pathfinder International</span> Global non-profit organization

Pathfinder International is a global non-profit organization that focuses on sexual and reproductive health and rights, including reproductive health, family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention and care, and maternal and newborn health. The organization operates in more than 15 low- and middle-income countries in Africa and South Asia. Its website states: "Pathfinder is driven by the conviction that all people, regardless of where they live, have the right to decide whether and when to have children, to exist free from fear and stigma, and to lead the lives they choose."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

Danny Julian Boggs is an American lawyer and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated state durational residency requirements for public assistance and helped establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Shapiro was a part of a set of three welfare cases all heard during the 1968–69 term by the Supreme Court, alongside Harrell v. Tobriner and Smith v. Reynolds. Additionally, Shapiro, King v. Smith (1968), and Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) comprise the "Welfare Cases", a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with welfare.

Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the right of the executive branch to revoke a citizen's passport for reasons of national security and the foreign policy interests of the U.S. under the Passport Act of 1926.

The anti-prostitution pledge is an organization-wide policy opposing prostitution and sex-trafficking that the federal government of the United States requires certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to adopt in order for them to receive federal anti-HIV/AIDS or anti-trafficking funds. This requirement has been in place since 2003.

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (AOSI) is a U.S. public charity organized in 2003 under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as AOSI I, was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to most of the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Tennessee law that restricted political campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place did not violate the First Amendment.

California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Bank Secrecy Act, passed by Congress in 1970 requiring banks to record all transactions and report certain domestic and foreign transactions of high-dollar amounts to the United States Treasury, did not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers. The decision effected identified that some commercial speech may have weaker First Amendment free speech protections than non-commercial speech and that states can compel such commercial speech to protect their interests; future cases have relied on the "Zauderer standard" to determine the constitutionality of state laws that compel commercial speech as long as the information to be disclosed is "purely factual and uncontroversial".

Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of robocalls made to cell phones, a practice that had been banned by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), but which exemptions had been made by a 2015 amendment for government debt collection. The case was brought by the American Association of Political Consultants, an industry trade group, and others that desired to use robocalls to make political ads, challenging the exemption unconstitutionally favored debt collection speech over political speech. The Supreme Court, in a complex plurality decision, ruled on July 6, 2020, that the 2015 amendment to the TCPA did unconstitutionally favor debt collection speech over political speech and violated the First Amendment.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania violated First Amendment rights of a Catholic foster care agency by refusing to renew the agency's contract unless it agreed to certify married same-sex couples as foster parents.

References

  1. Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y, No. 19-177 , 591 U.S. ___(2020).
  2. Liptak, Adam (June 20, 2013). "Justices Say U.S. Cannot Impose Antiprostitution Condition on AIDS Grants". The New York Times . Retrieved June 25, 2013.
  3. Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. , 570 U.S. 205 (2013).
  4. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 106F. Supp. 3d355 ( S.D.N.Y. 2015).
  5. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int'l Dev., 911F.3d104 ( 2d Cir. 2018).
  6. 1 2 Kruzel, John (June 29, 2020). "Supreme Court rules US requirements on overseas NGOs do not violate free speech". The Hill . Retrieved June 29, 2020.
  7. Howe, Amy (June 29, 2020). "Opinion analysis: Justices uphold condition for HIV/AIDS funding". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 30, 2020.