Rust v. Sullivan
500 U.S. 173 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government may condition the receipt of federal funds on a recipient's agreement to refrain from engaging in specific speech within the funded program, as this is not viewpoint discrimination but a choice to fund one activity over another, provided the recipient remains free to engage in the restricted speech through separate, privately funded activities.
Facts:
- In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide federal funds for family-planning services.
- Section 1008 of the Act states that no funds shall be used in programs where 'abortion is a method of family planning.'
- For nearly two decades, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) interpreted this to permit Title X-funded projects to provide non-directive counseling on all pregnancy options, including abortion.
- In 1988, the Secretary of HHS promulgated new regulations that significantly altered this interpretation.
- The new regulations prohibited Title X projects from providing counseling concerning abortion or making referrals for abortion.
- The regulations also forbade projects from engaging in activities that 'encourage, promote or advocate abortion as a method of family planning.'
- Finally, the rules required that Title X projects be organized so they are 'physically and financially separate' from any prohibited abortion activities.
- Title X grantees and doctors (Petitioners) challenged these new regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Title X grantees and doctors (Petitioners) filed two separate actions against the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The actions, which were later consolidated, challenged the facial validity of the regulations and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, upholding the regulations.
- Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the circuit courts, as other circuits had invalidated the regulations.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Department of Health and Human Services regulations, which prohibit recipients of Title X funds from counseling patients about abortion, providing abortion referrals, or advocating for abortion, and require physical and financial separation from abortion-related activities, exceed the agency's statutory authority or violate the First and Fifth Amendment rights of providers and their patients?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the regulations are a permissible construction of the statute and do not violate the First or Fifth Amendments. Statutorily, the language of Title X is ambiguous, and under Chevron, the Court must defer to the Secretary's permissible construction of the statute. Constitutionally, the government has not engaged in viewpoint discrimination; it has simply chosen to fund one activity (pre-conception family planning) to the exclusion of another (abortion-related activities). This is not an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of a benefit, because the regulations limit the speech of the federally funded project, not the grantee as a whole. The grantee remains free to engage in abortion-related speech and activities using non-federal funds, so long as those activities are kept physically and financially separate. The regulations do not violate the Fifth Amendment because the government has no affirmative duty to fund abortion services; this refusal to fund leaves a woman in no worse position than if the government had not funded family planning at all.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the regulations are both statutorily invalid and unconstitutional. The Court should have applied the canon of constitutional avoidance; because the regulations raise 'grave and doubtful' constitutional questions, the Court should have interpreted the ambiguous statute to not authorize them. Constitutionally, the regulations are a clear case of viewpoint-based suppression of speech, compelling one viewpoint (childbirth) while suppressing another (abortion), which violates the First Amendment. They also violate the Fifth Amendment by placing formidable obstacles in the path of a woman's right to choose, not by merely withholding funds, but by actively distorting the doctor-patient dialogue and interfering with her ability to make an informed decision.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the regulations are invalid because they are not authorized by the statute. The plain language of the Act, which prohibits using funds where abortion is a method of family planning, is directed at conduct (the performance of abortions), not speech. For 18 years, under four presidents, the agency consistently interpreted the statute this way. The Secretary's radical 1988 reinterpretation represents an assumption of policymaking responsibility that Congress did not delegate, and it is an unrealistic to conclude that a statute regulating conduct implicitly authorized the Executive to regulate speech.
Dissenting - Justice O’Connor
Yes, the regulations should be invalidated on statutory grounds. The regulations raise serious First Amendment concerns by placing content-based restrictions on speech. Under the long-standing canon of judicial restraint, where an agency's interpretation of a statute raises serious constitutional problems, the Court should construe the statute to avoid those problems. Therefore, the Court should invalidate the regulations as an unreasonable interpretation of the statute without reaching the unnecessary and difficult constitutional questions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, giving the government greater authority to restrict speech within federally funded programs. By distinguishing between a condition on the 'grantee' versus the 'project,' the Court established that the government can prohibit specific speech to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose, so long as the recipient can still engage in that speech through a separate, privately funded entity. This 'gag rule' ruling had a profound and immediate impact on family planning clinics and became a major precedent in First Amendment jurisprudence concerning government subsidies and speech.
