Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Inc. v. Sullivan

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
979 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir. 1992)


Facts

Section 1008 of Title X of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-6, provides that “[n]one of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” In 1988, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) promulgated by notice and comment rulemaking new regulations that included a “gag rule” applicable to all Title X personnel against discussing with clients the availability of abortions as an option. In Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), the Supreme Court upheld the rule against challenge that the rule interfered with a doctor’s right to treat her patient as she thought best. In 1991, President Bush directed HHS not to apply the regulations in a way that would prevent a woman from receiving information about abortion from her doctor. Dr. Louis Sullivan, the director of HHS, complied by ordering his subordinates to apply the regulations in accordance with the President’s wishes. HHS issued directives to regional administrators to enforce the existing regulations in ways that would permit the discussion of abortions by physicians. National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Inc. and other organizations (plaintiffs) filed suit challenging the directives on the ground that they had not complied with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the new directives were arbitrary and capricious. The district court enjoined enforcement of the directives because they were procedurally improper. HHS appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Wald, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 129,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 177 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.