Supreme Court Victory: George Soros Can Now Be Labelled An Enemy Combatant

This is kind of a big thing.   Even compromised Roberts agreed!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://t.co/Xy9tVWh8fM?amp=1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ET AL   . v. ALLIANCE FOR OPEN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL   .

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT  

No. 19–177. Argued May 5, 2020—Decided June 29, 2020

In the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, as relevant here, Congress limited the funding of American and foreign nongovernmental organizations to those with “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”  22 U. S. C. §7631(f).  In 2013, that Policy Requirement, as it is known, was held to be an unconstitutional restraint on free speech when applied to American organizations.  Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U. S. 205.  Those American organizations now challenge the requirement’s constitutionality when applied to their legally distinct foreign affiliates.  The District Court held that the Government was prohibited from enforcing the requirement against the foreign affiliates, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Held: Because plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates possess no First Amendment rights, applying the Policy Requirement to them is not unconstitutional. Two bedrock legal principles lead to this conclusion.  As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 770–771.  And as a matter of American corporate law, separately incorporated organizations are separate legal units with distinct legal rights and obligations.  See, e.g., Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 474–475.  That conclusion corresponds to Congress’s historical practice of conditioning funding to foreign organizations, which helps ensure that U. S. foreign aid serves U. S. interests.  

 Plaintiffs’ counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, they claim