Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Policy Requirement, which mandates organizations to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking to receive funding, violates the First Amendment when applied to foreign affiliates of American organizations. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision, stating that foreign affiliates do not possess First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The decision emphasized the distinction between American organizations and their legally separate foreign affiliates.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society.
The Court held that applying the Policy Requirement to plaintiffs' foreign affiliates is not unconstitutional because they possess no First Amendment rights.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society
The case primarily concerns whether the Policy Requirement violates the First Amendment rights of American organizations when applied to their foreign affiliates.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)In 2013, that Policy Requirement, as it is known, was held to be an unconstitutional restraint on free speech when applied to American organizations.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society
The Court reviews and decides on the constitutionality of applying the Policy Requirement to foreign affiliates.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Because plaintiffs' foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society
The case involves the question of whether American organizations can assert First Amendment rights on behalf of their foreign affiliates.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Plaintiffs' counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, they claim that because a foreign affiliate's policy statement may be attributed to them, American organizations themselves possess a First Amendment right against the Policy Requirement's imposition on their foreign affiliates.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society that support the summary and concepts above.
Foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution.
Separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct legal rights and obligations.
The Government was prohibited from enforcing the requirement against the foreign affiliates.
