Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society, 591 U.S. 430

The U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (2003) conditions certain foreign-aid grants on recipients having “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” (the Policy Requirement).
Domestic plaintiffs are U.S. NGOs that receive Leadership Act funds and argue that the Policy Requirement forces them to adopt government‑mandated speech that undermines their work; in 2013 the Court held the Requirement unconstitutional as applied to U.S. organizations (AOSI I).
Foreign affiliates of those U.S. NGOs are separately incorporated abroad and remain subject to the Policy Requirement; the District Court and Second Circuit enjoined enforcement as to affiliates, prompting certiorari.
The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit: it held foreign organizations operating abroad possess no First Amendment rights, so the Government may enforce the Policy Requirement against them.
The majority rested its decision on two principal points: (1) the Constitution generally does not confer rights on foreign citizens outside U.S. territory; and (2) separate corporate entities are legally distinct—voluntary affiliation does not transfer constitutional protection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do foreign affiliates of U.S. NGOs have First Amendment rights against the Policy Requirement?	Yes — affiliates that are clearly identified with U.S. NGOs should be protected (misattribution/association).	No — foreign organizations operating abroad have no constitutional rights.	No — foreign affiliates operating abroad have no First Amendment rights.
Can U.S. NGOs assert their own First Amendment rights to prevent enforcement against their foreign affiliates (misattribution/forced association)?	Yes — audiences will attribute affiliate speech to the U.S. NGOs, so conditioning affiliate speech distorts U.S. NGOs’ message.	No — plaintiffs voluntarily affiliate; misattribution precedents require government compulsion to associate.	No — misattribution cases presuppose government compulsion; voluntary affiliation does not create a constitutional shield.
Did the Court's 2013 decision (AOSI I) already bar enforcement of the Policy Requirement against foreign affiliates?	Yes — AOSI I protected plaintiffs’ global speech, including when conveyed through affiliates.	No — AOSI I applied to U.S. organizations and did not facially invalidate the statute or exempt foreign entities.	No — AOSI I did not resolve rights of foreign affiliates; it did not require exempting foreign organizations.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (extraterritorial application of constitutional rights depends on objective factors and practical concerns)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (foreign citizens outside U.S. territory generally not protected by Constitution)
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) (limitations on extraterritorial constitutional claims of noncitizens)
Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013) (AOSI I) (funding condition requiring recipients to affirm a viewpoint violated First Amendment as applied to U.S. organizations)
Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (compelled association or forced hosting of speech can distort organizer's message)
Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540 (1983) (conditioning a government benefit on limiting certain activities can be permissible where alternative channels exist)
FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364 (1984) (funding conditions that eliminate a recipient's ability to express views can violate the First Amendment)
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) (separately incorporated entities are distinct for many legal purposes)
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Inst. Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (government may impose certain conditions on recipients without violating the First Amendment)