Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. v. United States Agency for International Development
258 F. Supp. 3d 391
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (several NGOs) sued the U.S. government challenging 22 U.S.C. § 7631(f) (the "Policy Requirement") that conditions certain AIDS/TB/malaria funding on an organization adopting a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Policy Requirement against Plaintiffs on First Amendment grounds; that decision was affirmed by the Second Circuit and by the U.S. Supreme Court.
- On January 30, 2015, the district court converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction prohibiting the Government from applying the Policy Requirement to Plaintiffs and their domestic and foreign affiliates and from issuing communications that omit a clear exemption for them; the court also issued an order to show cause regarding application to other organizations.
- The Government moved (Jan. 13, 2017) for reconsideration/clarification, arguing primarily that (1) the injunction is unclear about which "affiliates" are covered, (2) the injunction improperly reaches non-parties, and (3) the injunction is unnecessary because the Government was not enforcing the requirement against U.S.-based organizations after the Supreme Court decision.
- Plaintiffs opposed, defending the injunction’s scope (including foreign affiliates), its clarity, and the propriety of the order to show cause; they offered to negotiate clarifying language about what constitutes a "clearly identified" foreign affiliate.
- The court denied the Government’s motion, concluding the Government presented no new law or evidence, the injunction is sufficiently definite, the order to show cause is proper given the Supreme Court’s decision, and the prior stay was lifted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion of preliminary injunction to permanent injunction | Permanent injunction appropriate because Plaintiffs prevailed on merits at each stage and government violated prior orders | Permanent injunction inappropriate; government compliant and injunction unnecessary | Court affirmed conversion; denial of reconsideration — no new grounds shown |
| Scope to affiliates (domestic and foreign) | Injunction properly covers Plaintiffs’ affiliates; court already explained rationale; willing to clarify "clearly identified" foreign affiliates | Injunction unclear; forces government to determine affiliate status without criteria; should not reach foreign affiliates | Court held "affiliate" is ascertainable; injunction sufficiently definite; parties to meet and propose clarifying language within 30 days |
| Clarity of injunction (Rule 65(d) concern) | Order is sufficiently specific; Plaintiffs offered further clarifying language if needed | Order is vague as to which entities are covered and how government should proceed | Court found language meets Rule 65(d) specificity requirements; no clear error or manifest injustice |
| Order to Show Cause re application to non-parties | Order to show cause does not expand the injunction or bind non-parties; it seeks justification if government intends to apply requirement more broadly | Order improperly reaches beyond parties and exceeds court's power; plaintiffs lack standing to seek relief for non-parties | Court upheld Order to Show Cause as proper given Supreme Court’s holding that Policy Requirement is facially problematic; not an extension of injunction to non-parties |
| Stay of injunction pending motion | Plaintiffs sought lift and enforcement of injunction | Government sought continued stay while it considered further review | Court lifted stay after denying reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 570 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (held the Policy Requirement violates the First Amendment)
- Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 651 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s preliminary injunction)
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (standards for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, or clear error)
- In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (reconsideration is extraordinary and to be employed sparingly)
- N.Y. State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir. 1989) (requirements for injunction specificity)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (moving party on reconsideration must point to overlooked controlling law or facts)