Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.
Foreign groups that receive American funding to fight HIV and AIDS must still pledge to oppose sex work, following a U. S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the requirement. A similar requirement for U. S. nonprofits was struck down as unconstitutional in 2013.
In the recent case, United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., U. S. groups whose international affiliates must still abide by the rule sought to have it overturned, too, arguing that compelling anti-prostitution speech from these foreign affiliates was attributed to the American groups and therefore violated their First Amendment rights.
But in a 5-3 decision, the Court rejected their plea.
«In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,» wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority’s opinion. While anti-prostitution statements «may be incorrectly attributed to the American organizations,» these groups «are free to choose whether to affiliate with foreign organizations and are free to disclaim agreement with the foreign affiliates’ required statement of policy.»
Also siding in favor of the law were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.
In a dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor suggest that the court «asks the wrong question and gives the wrong answer.
