Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
key case
In ''Rust v. Sullivan'', 500 U.S. 173 (1991), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] rejected a [[First Amendment]] challenge to regulations prohibiting entities that receive Title X grants for the operation of family-planning projects from engaging in [[abortion]] counseling. This decision was the only time newly confirmed Justice [[David Souter]] voted against abortion, and his vote provided the 5-4 margin of victory. Based on Justice Souter's position in this case the [[liberal]] media began criticizing him, and he soon swung to the [[liberal]] side of the Court whereupon the criticism stopped.
Future Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] successfully argued against the [[abortion]] side in this case, defeating [[liberal]] Professor [[Laurence Tribe]] who argued for the [[abortion]] side.
In ''Rust v. Sullivan'', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that, within "broad[] limits," when "the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program," it is "entitled to define the limits of that program" and to prohibit certain speech "to ensure that the limits of the federal program are observed." ''Id.'' at 193-194.
Distinguishing between the government's sovereign and non-sovereign functions, the Court explained that the case involved, not "a general law singling out a disfavored group on the basis of speech," but rather a "refus[al] to fund activities, including speech, which are specifically excluded from the scope of the project funded." ''Id.'' at 194-195. The Court noted that a recipient of funds "is in no way compelled to operate a Title X project" and may "avoid the force of the regulations ... simply [by] declin[ing] the subsidy." ''Id.'' at 199 n.5. The Court also indicated that the result would have been different if the program had involved property "traditionally open to the public for expressive activity" or "expressly dedicated to speech activity," id. at 200 (quoting ''Kokinda'', 497 U.S. at 726), thereby suggesting that the program at issue could be viewed as a nonpublic forum.
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]
Future Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] successfully argued against the [[abortion]] side in this case, defeating [[liberal]] Professor [[Laurence Tribe]] who argued for the [[abortion]] side.
In ''Rust v. Sullivan'', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that, within "broad[] limits," when "the Government appropriates public funds to establish a program," it is "entitled to define the limits of that program" and to prohibit certain speech "to ensure that the limits of the federal program are observed." ''Id.'' at 193-194.
Distinguishing between the government's sovereign and non-sovereign functions, the Court explained that the case involved, not "a general law singling out a disfavored group on the basis of speech," but rather a "refus[al] to fund activities, including speech, which are specifically excluded from the scope of the project funded." ''Id.'' at 194-195. The Court noted that a recipient of funds "is in no way compelled to operate a Title X project" and may "avoid the force of the regulations ... simply [by] declin[ing] the subsidy." ''Id.'' at 199 n.5. The Court also indicated that the result would have been different if the program had involved property "traditionally open to the public for expressive activity" or "expressly dedicated to speech activity," id. at 200 (quoting ''Kokinda'', 497 U.S. at 726), thereby suggesting that the program at issue could be viewed as a nonpublic forum.
[[category:US Supreme Court Cases]]