Daily Dispatches
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, center, interacts with the gathering after a visit to a ward at the Safdurjung Hospital in New Delhi, India.
Associated Press/Photo by Gurinder Osan
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, center, interacts with the gathering after a visit to a ward at the Safdurjung Hospital in New Delhi, India.

Supreme Court rejects government belief requirements for groups receiving international aid

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 on Thursday that the U.S. government’s conditions for groups receiving international aid violated the First Amendment. USAID required that organizations receiving grants as part of President George W. Bush’s massive public health programs in Africa fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, must explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking. Several groups balked, saying that position could harm their efforts to reach sex workers and violated their First Amendment rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed in his majority opinion. 

“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,” he wrote. “In so doing, it violates the First Amendment and cannot be sustained.”

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

Most religious freedom advocates, despite concern about groups potentially encouraging prostitution, had hoped the Supreme Court would overturn this policy. They hope through the ruling that the government won’t be able to impose politically driven beliefs on faith-based groups receiving public funding.

“[A] secular-minded government might use such a broad gag-power to exclude organizations that do not follow the current societal consensus on moral issues,” wrote Stanley Carlson-Thies in his International Religious Freedom Alliance report following the Supreme Court arguments in April. “It is a difficult case for a multitude of reasons. However, a decision that gives the federal government broad power to exclude from its grant programs organizations that do not toe the current governmental ideology would be a tragic outcome.” 

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that, “This policy requirement is nothing more than a means of selecting suitable agents to implement the government’s chosen strategy to eradicate HIV/AIDS.”

Emily Belz
Emily Belz

Emily, who has covered everything from political infighting to pet salons for The Indianapolis Star, The Hill, and the New York Daily News, reports for WORLD from New York City. Follow Emily on Twitter @emzleb.

Comments

You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading

     

    A breath of hope

    A Montana couple practices patience in ministering to Native Americans

    Advertisement