Supreme Court: Fed Law Violated AIDS Groups' First Amendment Rights

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law that required non-profit organizations who obtained federal funding for HIV/AIDS programs abroad to have a policy that opposed sex trafficking and prostitution, according to Reuters.

The court ruled 6-2 that the 2003 law violated the First Amendment rights of the groups receiving money by requiring them to reject prostitution, according to Politico.

"The Policy Requirement compels as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the Government program," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. "In doing so, it violates the First Amendment."

The case was brought up by four organizations that work to fight HIV/AIDS in the developing world that argued that their work was completely unrelated to prostitution. Since prostitution can contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS the Obama administration had argued that the government had a responsibility to only give money to groups who opposed prostitution, reports the Washington Post.

Chief Justice Roberts said that while the government has the right to make sure groups do not spend federal money on policies that are opposed by the government that forcing them to make a pledge against prostitution was overstepping their bounds, according to Politico.

"The Policy Requirement goes beyond preventing recipients from using private funds in a way that would undermine the federal program," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "It requires them to pledge allegiance to the Government's policy of eradicating prostitution."

Chief Justice Roberts than compared his ruling to a Supreme Court ruling from 1943 that said that people could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, according to Politico.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein," Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1943.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. In his dissent Justice Scalia wrote that the pledge "is nothing more than a means of selecting suitable agents to implement the government's chosen strategy to eradicate HIV/AIDS," according to the Washington Post.

Justice Scalia argued that the government should still be allowed to restrict who they give money to.

"The First Amendment does not mandate a viewpoint-neutral government. If the program can disfavor [prostitution] so can the selection of those who are to administer the program. A central part of the Government's HIV/AIDS strategy is the suppression of prostitution, by which HIV is transmitted. It is entirely reasonable to admit to participation in the program only those who believe in that goal."

Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case since she had worked on it while serving as solicitor general in the Obama administration.