God save the United States and this honorable court. This morning we will hear argument in case 19177 the United States agency for International Development versus the alliance for open society international. I note at the outset that Justice Kagen is recused in this case. Mr. Michelle . Justice, may it please20 years ago, the hiv aids the court. Pandemic was devastating the world. In response, president bush proposed since reauthorized three times, the act has committed nearly 80 billion to global aids relief. It has worked. The funding condition at issue here requires recipients to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking, which Congress Found are coercive practices that spread hivaids. This court held that a flight that condition to respondents, domestic entities violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine but respondents sought more and the question is whether the condition can still be applied to foreign grant recipients operating abroad. It can, for two reaso
Honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention with the court is now sitting with the United States and this honorable court. This morning we will hear argument in case 19177, the United States agency for International Development versus the alliance for open Society International. I know at the outset that Justice Kagan is recused in this case. Mr. Michelle. Mr. Chief Justice Manny please the court, 20 years ago the hivaids pandemic was devastating the world in response president bush proposed that congress adopted leadership act, since reactor rice three times theyve committed 80 billion to global aids relief, it is worth saving more than 17 million lives in the most successful American Foreign aid efforts since the marshall plan. The funding can issue requires recipients travel policy prostitution and sex
Justice kagan is recused in this case. Mr. Michelle . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. 20 years ago the hivaids pandemic was devastating the world. In response, president bush proposed and congress adopted the leadership act, since reauthorized three times the act has committed nearly 80 million to global aids relief and it has worked, saving more than 17 million lives in the most successful foreign aid effort from america since the marshall plan. The issue at here requires recipients to have a policy of opposing prostitution and sex trafficking, which Congress Found our coercive practices that spread hivaids and degrade women and girls. This court held that applying that condition to respondents violates the constitutional conditions doctrine, but respondents sought more. The question is whether the condition can still be applied to foreign grant recipients operating abroad. It can for two straightforward reasons. They cannot bring in unconstitutional conditions claim, a
The chief justice and the associate justices of the supreme court. I note at the outset that Justice Kagan is recused in this case. Mr. Michelle . Hiv aidsrs ago, the pandemic was devastating the world. In response, president bush reauthorizedince three times, the act has committed nearly 80 billion to global aids relief. It has worked. Funding condition at issue to haveuires recipients a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking, which Congress Found are coercive practices that spread hivaids. A flightt held that that condition to respondents, domestic entities violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine but respondents sought more and the question is whether the condition can still be applied to foreign grant recipients operating abroad. It can, for two reasons. Foreign entities lack Constitutional Rights, so they cannot ring constitutional conditions claim. Neither can respondents, because they are not subject to the funding condition. Next to their victory in this cour
Microphone. Ill speak louder, your honor. After the supplemental briefing it is clear that all parties this has jurisdiction and thats because the federal government is continuing enforcing the Affordable Care act until a Court Finally orders it not to do so. He legal harm from the courts below order and the participation of the states and house of representatives ensures that there will be an adversarial issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature your standing interveneors states, are you conceding the plaintiff states . No were not. You are in new orleans in the fifth telling us that the state of texas doesnt have standing to legitimate here, explain that. What is the distinction that licenses you to have a standing here. The judgment below would cost the defendant states hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds. The state plaintiffs rely on a series of standing that they have not proved up. They argue that the individual mandate, even