Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.

In 2003, Congress passed the Leadership Act to fund global HIV/AIDS relief, attaching a condition that no funds could go to organizations lacking a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Several U.S.-based NGOs receiving funds challenged this "Policy Requirement" as a violation of their First Amendment rights, arguing it compelled them to adopt a government viewpoint that would undermine their work with sex workers. The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the requirement was an unconstitutional condition because it forced recipients to espouse a belief that could not be confined to the scope of the funded program, thereby regulating speech outside the program's contours.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit's decision, ruling 6-2 that the Policy Requirement violates the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor. Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Whether the government may require recipients of federal HIV/AIDS funding to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of receiving such funds, or whether this constitutes an impermissible restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The ruling reinforced the principle that the government cannot use funding conditions to compel organizations to adopt or affirm beliefs beyond the scope of a specific federal program. It provided significant protection for NGOs' free speech rights, allowing them to remain neutral on contested issues like prostitution when operating with federal funds. The decision also clarified the boundaries of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, limiting Congress's ability to leverage spending power to regulate speech outside the funded program.