Rust v. Sullivan
United States Supreme Court
500 U.S. 173, 111 S. Ct. 1759 (1991)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), which provided federal funding for family-planning services. However, the PHSA specified that none of the federal funds were to be used in programs in which abortion was considered a method of family planning. In 1988, Sullivan (defendant), the secretary of health and human services, issued new regulations that attached three principal conditions on the grant of federal funds for Title X projects. Firstly, Title X projects could not provide counseling concerning the use of or provide referral for abortion as a method of family planning. Secondly, projects could not engage in activities that encouraged, promoted, or advocated abortion as a method of family planning. Thirdly, Title X projects were required to be organized so they were physically and financially separate from prohibited abortion activities. Before the new regulations could be applied, however, Rust and others similarly situated (plaintiffs)—Title X grantees and doctors who supervised Title X funds—brought suit in federal district court challenging the regulations’ validity and seeking an injunction to prevent their implementation. The district court upheld the regulations as constitutional, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Dissent (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
