 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Rust v. Sullivan: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_text_source=Quimbee video summary" to "|source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|subject=First Amendment | |subject=First Amendment | ||
|appealed_from=2nd Circuit | |appealed_from=2nd Circuit | ||
|facts=In 1970, [[Congress]] passed [https://opa.hhs.gov/grant-programs/title-x-service-grants/about-title-x-service-grants Title X] (Title 10) of the Public Health Service Act. This is a federal grant program for '''family planning'''. | |facts=In 1970, [[Congress]] passed [https://opa.hhs.gov/grant-programs/title-x-service-grants/about-title-x-service-grants Title X] (Title 10) of the Public Health Service Act. This is a federal grant program for '''family planning'''. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
| Rust v. Sullivan | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | May 23, 1991 |
| Appealed from | 2nd Circuit |
Facts
In 1970, Congress passed Title X (Title 10) of the Public Health Service Act. This is a federal grant program for family planning.
Title X funds could not be used for the reproductive right to an abortion.
In 1988, the 17th US Health Secretary, Louis Wade Sullivan, announced that family planning clinics can't refer patients for abortion while receiving Title X family planning funds. Sullivan also stipulated that family planning centers under Title X couldn't productive abortion services.Procedural History
Rust (medical care provider) and other filed a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional conditions for receipt of federal funds for family planning.
Arguments
Rust argued that the Sullivan conditions violates the First Amendment on the basis of pro-choice speech.
Holding
In a 5-4 majority, SCOTUS held that restricting reproductive rights (abortion) as a condition for receiving family planning funds is permissible under the US Constitution.
