Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. v. United States Agency for International Development

Citation: 258 F. Supp. 3d 391Docket: 05 Civ. 8209

Court: District Court, S.D. New York; June 6, 2017; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs Alliance for Open Society International, Open Society Institute, Pathfinder International, InterAction, and Global Health Council filed a lawsuit against the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The case began in 2005, aiming to prevent the enforcement of 22 U.S.C. Section 7631(f), which mandates that organizations receiving government grants under the Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act maintain a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. The court initially granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that enforcing this policy would result in irreparable harm and violate the Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. This decision was upheld by both the Second Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.

On January 30, 2015, the court converted the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction, prohibiting the Government from enforcing the Policy Requirement against the Plaintiffs and their affiliates. The court also required the Government to justify why the Policy Requirement should be enforced against any organization, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

On January 13, 2017, the Government sought reconsideration of the January 2015 Order, arguing that the injunction regarding "affiliates" was vague and lacked clear criteria for determining which entities qualified as affiliates. The Government requested clarification on the standards for identifying affiliates and how these standards should be applied under the injunction. The court denied the Government's motion for reconsideration.

The Government argues that the injunction against enforcing the Policy Requirement against the Plaintiffs and their domestic affiliates is unnecessary, asserting that there has been no actual enforcement since a 2013 Supreme Court decision. The Government claims that the January 2015 Order’s directive for the Government to justify enforcement against any organization exceeds necessary measures to prevent constitutional violations and that it improperly applies to non-parties, providing relief not sought by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the Government requests the withdrawal of the show cause provision and any related proceedings, as well as an extension of the stay pending potential reconsideration motions.

In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the permanent injunction is valid, justifiably extends to their foreign affiliates, and is sufficiently clear. They emphasize their success in litigation and the Government's prior violations of the injunction and Supreme Court decisions. Although the Plaintiffs assert that the January 2015 Order's rationale for including affiliates is well-founded, they express willingness to clarify the term "clearly identified" foreign affiliate. The Plaintiffs contend that the show cause provision does not impact the permanent injunction's scope and that the Government's objections are unfounded, advocating against further stays to allow them to receive entitled relief.

In its March 6, 2017 reply, the Government reiterates its position that the permanent injunction is improper and unclear, arguing that the Plaintiffs' proposed clarifications do not address its concerns about the injunction's application to affiliates. The text concludes by noting that reconsideration of a court order is a rare remedy, meant to uphold judicial resource conservation and finality.

Reargument is not intended for relitigating prior issues, introducing new theories, or seeking rehearings on the merits. Grounds for reconsideration include changes in controlling law, new evidence, or correction of clear errors to prevent manifest injustice. Local Rule 6.3 requires moving parties to identify overlooked legal or factual matters that could change the court's prior decision. This rule is strictly applied to avoid duplicative rulings and should not be used to advance unargued theories or replace an appeal of a final judgment. 

The Court determined that the Government did not present sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the January 2015 Order, which imposed a permanent injunction. The Government's motion expressed disagreement with the Order without providing new facts or legal authority, instead reiterating previous arguments against the permanent injunction. The Court had already rejected these arguments when it issued the January 2015 Order. Additionally, the Government did not demonstrate that any lack of clarity in the Order constituted clear error or manifest injustice. The permanent injunction clearly restrains the Government from applying the Policy Requirement to Plaintiffs and their affiliates.

The Government contends that the January 2015 Order lacks clarity on identifying affiliates subject to the injunction, defining "affiliate" as a corporation linked to another through shareholdings or control. The Court disagrees, asserting that the injunction sufficiently informs the Government of the prohibited conduct and that any need for further guidance on the definition of "affiliate" can be addressed through collaborative efforts between the parties. The Court also finds the Government's arguments regarding the Order to Show Cause as unfounded, reaffirming that applying the Policy Requirement to domestic NGOs or their affiliates would violate constitutional rights. The Government must demonstrate which organizations the Policy Requirement would apply to and justify its application without infringing on constitutional protections. The Court highlights that the Policy Requirement inherently violates the First Amendment and clarifies that the January 2015 Order does not extend the injunction to non-parties. Consequently, the Court denies the Government’s motion for reconsideration, lifts the stay on the permanent injunction, and orders the parties to report on their discussions regarding clarifying language within thirty days.