The Washington Post

Supreme Court weighs restrictions that Congress can impose on groups it funds

The Supreme Court seemed conflicted Monday on the question of whether the federal government can force groups that receive funding for overseas anti-HIV/AIDS programs to adopt its views against prostitution and sex trafficking.

And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pointed out the quandary, asking the first question to each of the lawyers arguing the case.

Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan said that Congress decided to renounce prostitution and sex trafficking because they contribute to the spread of diseases.

“Correspondingly, Congress determined. . . . that the government should partner with and should grant limited competitive federal funding to those organizations that agree with the policy,” Srinivasan said.

But, Roberts asked, what if that is incidental to the group’s core mission?

“There have to be some limitations on what type of loyalty oath you can require them to sign, isn’t there?” Roberts continued.

But when David W. Bowker rose to tell the court that the AIDS-fighting organizations he represents should not have to “profess a personal belief” imposed by the government, Roberts had a question for him:

“Why would they [government officials] want to sign up with somebody who didn’t share the objectives of the program?” he asked.

And so it went for an hour of questioning, as the court balanced the federal government’s right to fund organizations that share its goals with the First Amendment rights of groups that say the government’s conditions hinder their ability to achieve their goals.

The disputed provision is part of a 2003 law under which the United States is spending $60 billion to combat infectious diseases around the world. It says no funds may be given to a group or organization “that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”

But the groups that do the work said the requirement, which has not been enforced because of legal challenges, could undermine their anti-AIDS efforts because they often must work with those involved in prostitution. Besides, they argued, it is an intrusion on their free-speech rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed with the groups.

“Compelling speech as a condition of receiving a government benefit cannot be squared with the First Amendment,” a panel of the court decided 2 to 1.

Srinivasan said Congress was not trying to force groups to change their views. He said it sought only to give funds to the groups that already share the government’s views.

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was skeptical. “I’m not aware of any case in which this court has held that it is permissible for Congress to condition federal funding on the recipient’s expression of agreement with ideas with which the recipient disagrees,” he said, adding it would be a “dangerous precedent” to permit such “compelled speech.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made similar points, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the government’s case might be stronger if it did not grant exceptions to the policy. Groups such as the World Health Organization and U.N. organizations are not required to adopt such policies.

Still, Bowker faced questions about why Congress couldn’t consider the policies of the groups when awarding grants.

For example, can’t Congress fund the Boy Scouts of America simply because it likes the group’s programs? asked Justice Antonin Scalia. “They have to treat them equivalently with the Muslim Brotherhood? Is that really what you’re suggesting?”

Bowker also tried to make clear that the organizations he represented — among them, Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International, which operate programs around the world — “do not promote prostitution, nor do they approve of it.”

“They merely want to be free in their own private programs to operate those programs as they see fit.”

The case will be decided by only eight of the justices. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, presumably because she worked on the case while serving as President Obama’s solicitor general.

The case is Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society, Intl .

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
We'll have half a million voters in South Carolina. I can shake a lot of hands, but I can't shake that many.
Sen. Marco Rubio, speaking to a group of reporters about his strategy to regain support after a poor performance in the last debate
Fact Checker
Sanders’s claim that Clinton objected to meeting with ‘our enemies’
Sanders said that Clinton was critical of Obama in 2008 for suggesting meeting with Iran. In fact, Clinton and Obama differed over whether to set preconditions, not about meeting with enemies. Once in office, Obama followed the course suggested by Clinton, abandoning an earlier position as unrealistic.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.