A 2003 federal statute, called the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, finances a wide range of public health initiatives to treat and prevent disease around the world.

That law prohibits the use of any government money to “promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution.” But it also goes beyond that reasonable provision to require almost all recipients of funds to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution” — to make an anti-prostitution pledge — and to refrain from any speech the government deems “inconsistent with” the policy.

On Monday, in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether this provision violates the recipients’ First Amendment right to freedom of expression. It clearly does by requiring them to speak and advocate the government’s position, without the option of staying silent. This provision could also hurt outreach programs by undermining trust with sex workers, who may avoid seeking help from organizations with a declared anti-prostitution agenda.

The government contends that placing a condition on federal dollars is a legitimate way to promote its policies and those who do not want to make an explicit pledge can avoid it by not taking government money.