Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Rust Vs. Sullivan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 23, 1991

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

74 entries 7 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. Blodgett Vs. Holden US Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1927
  2. Maher Vs. Roe US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1977
  3. Harris Vs. Mcrae US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1980
  4. United States Vs. Kokinda US Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1990
  5. Roe Vs. Wade US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1973
  6. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  7. Perry Vs. Sindermann US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  8. U.S. 173 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Rust v. Sullivan
    Search
  9. U.S. 173 (1990) Rust v. Sullivan
    Search
  10. of the statute's plain language and does not otherwise conflict with Congress' expressed intent. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  11. value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds. Maher v. Roe
    Search
  12. used for activities, including speech, that are outside the federal program's scope. Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland
    Search
  13. one protected right, it must subsidize analogous counterpart rights, has been soundly rejected. See, e.g., Regan v. Taxation
    Search
  14. they merely require that such activities be kept separate and distinct from the activities of the Title X project. FCC v. League
    Search
  15. Amendment protection from Government regulation, even when subsidized by the Government, cf., e.g., United States v. Kokinda
    Search
  16. may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion. Webster v. Reproductive
    Search
  17. with the same choices as if the Government had chosen not to fund family planning services at all. See, e.g., Harris v. McRae
    Search
  18. doctor dialogue which violate a woman's right to make an informed and voluntary choice under Akron v. Akron
    Search
  19. Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. Page 500 U. S. 176 416, and Thornburg v. American
    Search
  20. and constitutional challenges to the regulations and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. New York v. Bowen
    Search
  21. Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 889 F.2d 401 (1989). Applying this Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
    Search
  22. Id. at 410. Finding that the prohibition on the performance of abortions upheld by the Court in Webster v. Reproductive
    Search
  23. Ibid., citing Webster v. Reproductive
    Search
  24. F.2d at 412. The court explained that, under Regan v. Taxation
    Search
  25. Massachusetts v. Sullivan
    Search
  26. Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Sullivan
    Search
  27. New York v. Sullivan
    Search
  28. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States v. State
    Search
  29. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29 , 463 U. S. 42 (1983), quoting American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchinson
    Search
  30. NLRB v. Curtin
    Search
  31. must be invalidated because they raise serious questions of constitutional law. They rely on Edward J. Debartolo Corp. v. Florida
    Search
  32. Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568 (1988), and NLRB v. Catholic
    Search
  33. Debartolo Corp., supra, 485 U.S. at 485 U. S. 575 (emphasis added) quoting Hooper v. California
    Search
  34. U. S. 648 , 155 U. S. 657 (1895). The principle enunciated in Hooper v. California
    Search
  35. Id. Following Hooper, supra, cases such as United States v. Delaware
    Search
  36. and Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366 , 213 U. S. 408 , and United States v. Jin
    Search
  37. is followed out of respect for Congress, which we assume legislates in the light of constitutional limitations. FTC v. American
    Search
  38. Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose
    Search
  39. this provision. The extensive litigation regarding governmental restrictions on abortion since our decision in Roe v. Wade
    Search
  40. Id. at 18. Relying on Regan v. Taxation
    Search
  41. With Representation of Wash. and Arkansas Writers Project, Inc. v. Ragland
    Search
  42. Regan, supra, 461 U.S. at 461 U. S. 548 (quoting Cammarano v. United
    Search
  43. is constitutional. In Maher v. Roe
    Search
  44. Regan, supra, 461 U.S. at 461 U. S. 549 . See also Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  45. Cammarano v. United
    Search
  46. right, it must subsidize analogous counterpart rights. But the Court has soundly rejected that proposition. Regan v. Taxation
    Search
  47. contrary to our decision in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota
    Search
  48. relinquishment of a constitutional right, the right to engage in abortion advocacy and counseling. Relying on Perry v. Sindermann
    Search
  49. U. S. 593 , 408 U. S. 597 (1972), and FCC v. League
    Search
  50. the recipient from engaging in the protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program. In FCC v. League
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial