Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430

Background:

Congress enacted the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) / Leadership Act (2003), conditioning certain foreign-aid grants on recipients having a "policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking" (the "Policy Requirement").
Domestic NGOs challenged the Policy Requirement as an unconstitutional condition; in 2013 (AOSI I) the Supreme Court held the Requirement unconstitutional as applied to U.S. organizations receiving funds.
The Leadership Act continued to be enforced against foreign affiliates of U.S. NGOs; plaintiffs sought relief to bar enforcement against their separately incorporated foreign affiliates.
The district court and the Second Circuit enjoined enforcement as to closely identified foreign affiliates; the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held foreign organizations operating abroad lack First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and emphasized corporate separateness between U.S. NGOs and their foreign affiliates, rejecting plaintiffs’ misattribution and preclusion arguments.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do foreign organizations operating abroad have First Amendment rights?	Foreign affiliates are clearly identified with U.S. NGOs and their compelled statements will be attributed to U.S. speakers, so constitutional protection should follow.	Foreign organizations abroad are outside U.S. territory and thus have no constitutional rights; courts should not apply the First Amendment extraterritorially.	Held: No — foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess First Amendment rights.
Can U.S. organizations assert their own First Amendment rights to enjoin application of the Policy Requirement to their foreign affiliates (misattribution theory)?	U.S. NGOs say enforcement against clearly identified foreign affiliates forces hypocrisy and will be perceived as the U.S. NGOs’ message, so U.S. NGOs’ speech is distorted.	Any misattribution flows from voluntary affiliation; the government does not force affiliation and plaintiffs can disclaim or restructure relationships. Corporate separateness prevents exporting U.S. NGOs’ rights.	Held: Rejected — plaintiffs cannot export their First Amendment rights to shield legally distinct foreign affiliates; misattribution precedents do not compel a new exception.
Did the Court’s 2013 decision (AOSI I) already resolve this issue as to affiliates?	Plaintiffs contend AOSI I protects U.S. NGOs when they speak through clearly identified affiliates, including foreign ones.	AOSI I protected U.S. organizations themselves but did not facially invalidate the Policy Requirement or extend constitutional rights to foreign organizations operating abroad.	Held: AOSI I did not establish a right for foreign affiliates; it did not require exemption of foreign organizations from the Policy Requirement.

Key Cases Cited

Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013) (held Policy Requirement unconstitutional as applied to domestic recipients)
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (extraterritorial reach of constitutional rights depends on objective factors, not formalism)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (foreigner abroad generally lacks Fourth Amendment rights)
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) (limiting extraterritorial application of constitutional protections to aliens abroad)
Hurley v. Irish‑Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (compelled inclusion/distortion of a speaker’s expressive event violates the First Amendment)
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1 (1986) (misattribution and compelled speech principles)
PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (limitations on attributing third‑party speech to property owners)
Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540 (1983) (conditioning tax‑exempt status on refraining from lobbying permitted where alternative channels exist)
FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364 (1984) (funding conditions that wholly bar a speaker’s outside expression violate the First Amendment)
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (government may impose certain conditions on receipt of federal benefits)