Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
E390993
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.
All labels observed (3)
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 |
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
ⓘ
surface form:
AID v. AOSI
|
| 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 |
Stephen G. Breyer
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
The Right of Free Speech
ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment Free Speech Clause
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2013-06-20 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice 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 |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Elena Kagan ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Elena Kagan
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
|
| joinedDissent |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Clarence Thomas
Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice 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 |
John G. Roberts Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice 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 |
Open Society Foundations
ⓘ
surface form:
Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
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.
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2020)
|
| term | October Term 2012 ⓘ |
| vote | 6-2 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. Description of subject: 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.
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
→
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
AID v. AOSI
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
→
subsequentRelatedCase
→
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2020)