Honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention with the court is now sitting with the United States and this honorable court. This morning we will hear argument in case 19177, the United States agency for International Development versus the alliance for open Society International. I know at the outset that Justice Kagan is recused in this case. Mr. Michelle. Mr. Chief Justice Manny please the court, 20 years ago the hivaids pandemic was devastating the world in response president bush proposed that congress adopted leadership act, since reactor rice three times theyve committed 80 billion to global aids relief, it is worth saving more than 17 million lives in the most successful American Foreign aid efforts since the marshall plan. The funding can issue requires recipients travel policy prostitution and sex trafficking which Congress Found are coercive practices that spread hiv and aids and degrade women and girls, this court held in respondents domestic entities, violates the unconstitutional condition doctrine that respondent sought more in the question now is whether the condition can still be applied to foreign grant recipients operating abroad. It can for two straightforward reasons, foreign entities lacked Constitutional Rights so they cannot bring an unconstitutional condition claim. And neither can respondents because they are not subject to the funding condition. Thanks to their victory in this course respondents can accept and use funds without any compelled speech. To be sure respondents can choose to affiliate with foreign entities that must comply with the policy conditions. But any effect on respondents message is now a product of their own choice, not government compulsion. Respondents country view is startling, they would allow u. S. Nonprofits to export Constitutional Rights to legally separate foreign entities abroad simply because they share similar brands. That novel theory has no basis in this courts prior decision, it can undermine longstanding regulations of foreign speech and it has no practical justification, for 17 years foreign recipients headed here to the policy condition without age Relief Program or responded speech. This court afforded respondents relief all they deserved in the decision below should be reversed. Counsel one thing that i think is not clear from the record is the precise relationship between the domestic entity and its foreign affiliates. We know that there are no formal corporate ties but that these entity share the same name, the same logo, the same brand, what would you require beyond that before attribute in the speech of the foreign entity to the domestic one. Mr. Chief justice you are correct that the record is not particular thorough on the issue despite 15 years of litigation on this matter in the District Court ultimately entered the injunction, based simply on letter briefly, but are position is that the formal distinction between the two entities, the u. S. Entity in the foreign entity is all that is required to attach separate legal rights, of course its important to note that respondents in the foreign entities that they claim is affiliate made the choice to be separate legal entities, that choice has certain benefits for them such as shielding them from liability but it also has is it reasonable to insist on formal corporate ties in this context, i gather that its undisputed to be effective in many of the Foreign Countries involved, you have to operate through foreign entity, we have to have the effort that would not be as effective if the american entity or the one actually on the ground in the foreign country. Two points on that, i think that is not true is a uniform matter, many of the respondents that u. S. Entities do in fact operate in Foreign Countries through Branch Offices and as a result of this courts prior decision, they always have a choice to operate in that way without compromising their speech in any way. They are in other words completely in charge of their own message while also accepting a leadership act fund. And to take your second point, if they make the choice to operate through a foreign entity because they decide that that is more convenient or more effective, they have to accept the bitter with the sweet to a legal entity but theyre not without recourse, they stand for example explain that the policy statement being issued by the foreign entity doesnt reflect their own views, their free speech allows them to do that and i would note. Presumably it does reflect their own views, they have the same name, the same logo, the same brand and a wonderful it makes more sense to think of the foreign entity as simply another channel for the domestic entity speech. Mr. Chief justice with respect to dont think it does, i think when that was the only option available as it was in the courts decision last time, i can understand of course why the court decided the way you did but now that respondents have a separate choice in fact the very choice that they were fighting for last time, any consequences of the choice to operate as separate entities is a result of their own decision. And i wanted to note. Thank you counsel, Justice Thomas. Mr. Michelle, the respondent seems to argue that your guidelines on your affiliate guidelines actually support their argument, what do you think of that. Justice thomas, i dont think that they do as an initial matter and even if they did i think that would utmost be evasive or challenging the guidelines not the constitutionality of the statute and to start with the first point the guidelines of which are reproduced at pages 18338 of our reply brief simply provide that in entity can affiliate with a separate entity that has a different policy on prostitution and trafficking if it meets certain requirements. There are five nonexhaustive requirements foldout. Four of those would generally be satisfied by an entity that has legal separation, i think it would be a rare circumstance that these regulations would ever result in the denial of funding to a foreign affiliate than to make one related point i respondent themselves are no longer subject to the policy requirement as a result of their prior decision in this case, if they run a foul of these regulations which simply interpret what it means to have a policy of apostate touche and trafficking, these regulations cannot be a mechanism for depriving the respondent themselves the funds. When this case was here last, i seem to remember it was about the Domestic Organization, what has changed since it was here, there was very little talk, the only time affiliates actually came out was an alternative to the enforcement procedures that were being used to the Domestic Organizations, so what has changed since his case was here last. Justice thomas sure exactly right, that was all that was issued last time, the only thing that has changed but the respondents asked for broader relief and although we fully accept the courts prior decision, we submit that respondents are not entitled to any further relief as you suggest theres nothing in this courts decision that contemplates or suggests applying the prohibition on the policy requirements the foreign entities overseas, i think the court ought to analyze the claim under First Principles into simple principles revolve the case they cannot have a constitutional claim, and the foreign entities that are subject have no Constitutional Rights, so they cannot have an unconstitutional claim either. We do think that what respondents are asking for is unjustifiably bootstrapping the prior decision into Global Relief and we simply dont think theres any basis for that. Thank you. Justice ginsburg. I have two questions, the first the statute exempts certain nondomestic entities from the requirement to adopt an antiprostitution policy and those are the global fund to find aids, the world health organization, International Aids Vaccine initiative in any human agency, what is the reason for the exemption. Why are these organizations exempt that are issued here. Justice ginsburg there are a few reasons for that, those are in the main and International Organizations that are composed of their own separate sovereigns, i think it makes sense that congress wouldve wanted to respect the sovereignty of the members of those organizations in a way that does not of course apply to nonprofit organizations receiving funded issues here, the vaccine organization that you mention as well seems to be particularly unlikely to bring into play the considerations that motivated congress to require the antiprostitution in sex trafficking pledge because are not operating in the field, theres somebody doing research on vaccines. It seems to me that these organizations are doing the same thing but let me ask you my second question, mayo pledge taker in these foreign entities have to take the pledge, they nonetheless work with prostitutes to encourage the prostitute to take preventative measures that will advance the control of aids. Have they done that, they say all right will take the pledge but were going to work with prostitutes to make sure these preventative devices . Absolutely they can Justice Ginsburg and we encourage that. That goes back to a point i was making earlier which the pledge that is required by the statute only requires one affirmative speech act and that is submitting to usaid the grant agreement, a policy opposing prosecution and trafficking, theres no requirement that foreign entities that make that pledge shouted from them on top or ende got in anybodys face aa mother clearly free and encouraged to work with prostitutes and victims of sex trafficking to prevent hiv, aids and indeed one of the reasons for including this requirement in the statute and many other provisions of the statute dealing with prostitution and tracsex trafficking that they recognize that women who are often coerced into those practices are themselves a heightened risk of contracting the disease, spreading the disease and of course losing other opportunities in their lives, we certainly encourage groups to do that kind of work and is not at all intention with the policy it requires. I would also note that amica filed in the coalition against trafficking of women which made the point that many prostitutes and victims of sex trafficking are themselves opposed to prostitution and trafficking and it would not take offense to the statement that the groups have to make. But in any event thank you counsel, justice breyer. Just following up on the question, some would take offense. And in the last case we said this court said that this organization takes money from the government and uses it to fight aids goods to prostitutes as part of their effort and says you safety, thats one way of helping to fight aids. And if it the same time they have to say were against prostitution, we dont like it, its terrible, well then the prostitutes will think their hypocrites were maybe worse. And will be suspicious. That was the reasoning last time, how does that change one iota in terms of their rights which we said they had the major organizations in the United States had the right to do, how does that change one iota instead of sending their own worker there, they give the money to a Foreign Worker in india who is associated with them in that Foreign Worker goes and says exactly the same thing to the prostitutes. Since the Foreign Workers are identified by name, mission, logo with the domestic workers, how does it interfere one with less if we accept your argument that will be seen domestic as well as the foreign ones as hypocrites or worse interfering with their mission. If we accepted the argument before why dont we accept it now . Theres a couple of quick responses, i dont think that the court did face the prior decision on that particular concern, i think it based its decision on the First Amendment right of the u. S. Entity that were receiving with the funds. The principal difference between the case last time and this time is not that the entities are interacting with prostitutes in any different manner, its that the institutes are now subject to the funding condition lacked Constitutional Rights under deeply established principal that foreign entities abroad dont exercise Constitutional Rights and therefore can be subject to greater speech restrictions that u. S. Entities at home. I want to reiterate that i think the concerns that you have raised while legitimate are not born out of practice because the policy requirement whether applied in the past two domestic groups or now to form groups does not require them to tell prostitutes that they oppose prostitution or to do anything affirmative beyond agreeing to being opposed to prostitution and trafficking in the letter, were fortunate to have a 17 year track record to look at here in the foreign entities have from the very beginning and even recently understates of the District Court injunction with this phase of the litigation then subject to the policy requirements throughout that. And as they noted in his dissent below, they have not identified even one example of anybody perceiving hypocrisy in their message or of setting back their work to fight hivaids which is been historic. Thank you counsel, justice alito. Counsel as i understand the governments position, it depends on whether the foreign entity that ultimately gets the leadership act funds is a separate legal entity or legally distinct from the u. S. Entity is that correct. What we look at is whether the recipient of the funds, the entity subject to the condition has First Amendment rights or not and we think that turns on whether there a u. S. Entity or foreign entity. What do you understand to be the meaning of legally separate or legally distinct and how would that apply where the u. S. Entity is a nonprofit corporation, a trust or an Unincorporated Association if there are any of those and in the situation where a foreign entity is organized in one of those things. There is a difficult question about how the corporations have not arisen in this case because i think respondents in the foreign entities at issue are clearly legally separate in the way that matters for the Funding Program which is to say theyve applied separately for different grants, so the easiest way to answer the question i think is when a u. S. Entity applies for grant as its own entity it is not subject to the policy requirement, what a foreign entity applies for a separate grant esteem for many affiliations that it might have with the u. S. Entity then a new subject is upon for requirement. U. S. Nt gives the money and wants to make a subgrant to a foreign entity and if i understood your position whether or not the foreign entity can be required to endorse the policy depends on whether is legally distinct from the u. S. Entities, is that correct. That is correct, and the subgrant relationship, the condition within attached to the foreign entity as a subgrantee of the u. S. Entity. s of the u. S. Entity is a trust, how will we determine what is legally separate what foreign entity is legally separate from a trust, u. S. Trust. To confess justice alito, we are not confronted the trust question so i dont have a ready answer for that i think in the 17 year history of the program there really hasnt been any difficulty in telling apart the Foreign Organizations from Domestic Organizations, were happy to take a further look at the trust hypothetical. Is that until recently the governments test was not whether its a legally separate entity but a multifactor test under the regulation to which Justice Thomas referred. Know with respect, that is not and has not been our position from the outset the government has applied the policy requirement to foreign entities abroad and it turns out as a result of injunctions for almost an entire. The government has not applied the policy requirement two domestic entities, the regulations justice. Im sorry chief, did it again. Mr. Michelle, the long and the short of this is that a Domestic Agency that does not want to adopt a policy but being opposed to abortion but who is willing to not support it in a program, they cannot receive funds unless they affiliate with someone who will make the statement for them, correct. I dont think so, u. S. Entity that opposes prostitution and trafficking which is the only requirement issued in this case can still receive funds as a result of the courts prior decision and they can use those funds abroad without contracting or otherwise working through. But the Domestic Corporation who does not want to speak to governments message but does want to do the program cant unless it finds it affiliate who will speak the governments message. With respect, i think that was the issue in the case last time but that is not true. Exactly. In the last time when you thought before us, you said it was mounting to a facial challenge, if we read our prior decisions as basically facially addressing the restriction do you win . I think if you read it as truly facial invalidating the statue the know we cannot win. Can i move on to another quest