October Term 2012 · Docket 12-10

Can the government force grant recipients to adopt its anti-prostitution policy?

The dispute centers on whether federal funding conditions compel recipients to express government views on prostitution.

Official caption
Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Bowker stated that the opposing sides do not dispute the government's authority to fund programs.

    Mr. Srinivasan argued that Congress includes an anti-prostitution policy to combat HIV and AIDS.

    Mr. Srinivasan cited the Regan case to support a rationality standard for funding conditions.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The government argues it controls funded programs. Recipients argue this forces them to speak against their will.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 22, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to uphold the funding condition.

The recipients want the Court to strike down the funding condition.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government claims the Spending Clause allows it to control speech within funded programs.

The recipients claim the government cannot force them to express agreement with its views.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked how partnering differs from simply giving money to do a job.

Justice Alito asked if the Court has ever permitted compelled speech in funding conditions.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between government funding and compelled speech. It determines whether recipients must adopt government policies to receive aid. The outcome shapes how federal grants interact with private expression.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON