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

E390993

United States Supreme Court case

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the government cannot require organizations receiving federal funds to adopt a specific ideological position as a condition of funding, under the First Amendment.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
AID v. AOSI	1
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. canonical	1
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2020)	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3822025 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
Context triple: [October Term 2012, includesCase, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.]

A. Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of government surveillance conducted under the FISA Amendments Act.
B. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
C. County of Allegheny v. ACLU
County of Allegheny v. ACLU is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the interpretation of the Establishment Clause by addressing the constitutionality of religious holiday displays on government property.
D. Alexander v. Sandoval
Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
E. United States v. Donovan
United States v. Donovan is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the requirements and scope of federal wiretap procedures and notice obligations under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
Target entity description: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the government cannot require organizations receiving federal funds to adopt a specific ideological position as a condition of funding, under the First Amendment.

A. Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of government surveillance conducted under the FISA Amendments Act.
B. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
C. County of Allegheny v. ACLU
County of Allegheny v. ACLU is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the interpretation of the Establishment Clause by addressing the constitutionality of religious holiday displays on government property.
D. Alexander v. Sandoval
Alexander v. Sandoval is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
E. United States v. Donovan
United States v. Donovan is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the requirements and scope of federal wiretap procedures and notice obligations under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
alsoKnownAs	AID v. AOSI ⓘ linked to: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
challengedProvision	policy requirement (anti-prostitution pledge) ⓘ
citation	133 S. Ct. 2321 ⓘ 186 L. Ed. 2d 398 ⓘ 570 U.S. 205 ⓘ
concernsProgram	United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 ⓘ
concernsStatute	22 U.S.C. § 7631(f) ⓘ
concurrenceBy	Justice Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ linked to: Stephen G. Breyer
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	First Amendment Free Speech Clause ⓘ linked to: The Right of Free Speech
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2013-06-20 ⓘ
dissentBy	Justice Antonin Scalia ⓘ linked to: Antonin Scalia
docketNumber	12-10 ⓘ
holding	Congress cannot leverage funding to regulate speech outside the scope of the federal program. ⓘ The government may not require funding recipients to adopt a specific belief as a condition of receiving federal funds. ⓘ The policy requirement violates the First Amendment by compelling speech. ⓘ
impact	limited the government’s ability to impose ideological conditions on grant recipients ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ linked to: Anthony M. Kennedy Justice Elena Kagan ⓘ linked to: Elena Kagan Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ linked to: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justice Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ linked to: Sonia Sotomayor Justice Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ linked to: Stephen G. Breyer
joinedDissent	Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ linked to: Clarence Thomas Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. ⓘ linked to: Samuel A. Alito Jr.
legalIssue	First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ freedom of speech ⓘ unconstitutional conditions doctrine ⓘ
lowerCourtCitation	651 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2011) ⓘ
lowerCourtHolding	Second Circuit held the policy requirement unconstitutional under the First Amendment. ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. ⓘ linked to: John G. Roberts Jr.
oralArgumentDate	2013-04-22 ⓘ
originatedFrom	United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ⓘ
petitioner	United States Agency for International Development ⓘ other United States government agencies ⓘ
relatedCase	Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez ⓘ Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington ⓘ Rust v. Sullivan ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	government speech doctrine ⓘ
respondent	Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. ⓘ linked to: Open Society Foundations other nongovernmental organizations ⓘ
subjectMatter	HIV/AIDS prevention funding ⓘ conditions on federal funding ⓘ international public health programs ⓘ
subsequentRelatedCase	Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2020) ⓘ linked to: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
term	October Term 2012 ⓘ
vote	6-2 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

October Term 2012 → includesCase → Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. ⓘ

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. → alsoKnownAs → AID v. AOSI ⓘ

linked to: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. → subsequentRelatedCase → Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2020) ⓘ