Rust v. Sullivan

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Rust v. Sullivan
ArgueDate=October 30
ArgueYear=1990
DecideDate=May 23
DecideYear=1991
FullName=Irving Rust, et al., Petitioners v. Linus W.— Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services; New York, et al., Petitioners v. Linus W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services
USVol=500
USPage=173
Citation=111 S. Ct. 1759; 114 L. Ed. 2d 233; 1991 U.S. LEXIS 2908; 59 U.S.L.W. 4451; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3713; 91 Daily Journal DAR 6006
Prior=Summary Judgment for defendant, 690 F. Supp. 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); affirmed, 889 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1989)
Subsequent=
Holding=Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting recipients of government funds from advocating, counseling, or referring patients for abortion do not violate statute, First Amendment, or Fourth or Fifth Amendment.
SCOTUS=1990-1991
Majority=Rehnquist
JoinMajority=White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
Dissent=Blackmun
JoinDissent=Marshall; Stevens (parts II, III); O'Connor (part I)
Dissent2=Stevens
Dissent3=O'Connor
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amends. I, V; Public Health Service Act, UnitedStatesCode|42|300|300a-8

"Rust v. Sullivan", 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1991. The case concerned the legality and constitutionality of Department of Health and Human Services regulations on the use of funds spent by the U.S. federal government to promote family planning. With Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Congress prohibited the funds from being "used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." In 1988, the Republican-appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services issued new regulations that prohibited projects receiving these funds from not only providing abortions, but also counseling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion. These regulations were challenged on the grounds that they were not permissibly within the scope of the statute and that they violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In its decision, the Court ruled that the regulations did not violate the legislation in question or the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority in finding that the regulations were a permissible construction of statutory law, that they do not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the recipients, and that they do not violate the Fifth Amendment right of women to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy as established in "Roe v. Wade".

One attorney for the government in this case was John Roberts, then Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. A brief for the case, of which Roberts was a coauthor, argued for overruling "Roe":

"We continue to believe that ["Roe v. Wade"] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in "Hodgson v. Minnesota", 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); "Webster v. Reproductive Health Services", 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); "Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists", 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and "City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health", 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in "Roe" that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/500/173.html]

The brief in question lists the following authors: Michael J. Astrue, General Counsel; Joel Mangel, Deputy Chief Counsel; Carol C. Conrad, Attorney, Department of Health and Human Services; Kenneth W. Starr, Solicitor General; Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General; John G. Roberts, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General; Jeffrey P. Minear, Assistant to the Solicitor General; Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Lowell v. Sturgill, Jr., Attorneys. With Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court in 2005, the positions he advocated at the time have come under increased scrutiny, particularly as they related to the emotional issues surrounding abortion.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 500

Further reading

* cite journal | last = Fitzpatrick | first = Michael | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1992 | month = | title = Rust Corrodes: The First Amendment Implications of "Rust v. Sullivan" | journal = Stanford Law Review | volume = 45 | issue = 1 | pages = 185–227 | doi = 10.2307/1228987 | url = | accessdate = | quote =
* cite journal | last = Kagan | first = Elena | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1992 | month = | title = The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: "R.A.V. v St. Paul", "Rust v Sullivan", and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion | journal = The Supreme Court Review | volume = 1992 | issue = | pages = 29–77 | doi = 10.2307/3109667 | url = | accessdate = | quote =| doi_brokendate = 2008-06-23
* cite journal | last = Leedes | first = G. C. | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1991 | month = | title = The discourse ethics alternative to "Rust v. Sullivan" | journal = University of Richmond Law Review | volume = 26 | issue = 1 | pages = 87–143 | pmid = 11659547 | url = | accessdate = | quote =

External links

* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/500/173/case.html Full Text of Rust v. Sullivan from Justia.com]