Rust v. Sullivan
Significance, Supreme Court Rejects Challenges To The "gag Rule" On Federally Funded Family Planning Clinics
Irving Rust, et al.
Louis W. Sullivan, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services
That federal regulations forbidding family planning clinics from providing their clients with information about abortion violate both the right to freedom of speech and a woman's right to abortion.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Laurence H. Tribe
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Kenneth W. Starr, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist (writing for the Court), Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
23 May 1991
The Supreme Court upheld the new federal regulations.
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).
- Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983).
- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).
- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
- LaMarche, Gara, ed. Speech & Equality: Do We Really Have to Choose? New York, NY: New York University Press, 1996.
- Reagan. Leslie J. When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1876-1973. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
- Yarnold, Barbara M. Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts: Right Versus Right. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois - Significance, State Workers Challenge The System, Another Blow To Patronage
- Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - Significance, Related Cases, Further Readings
- Rust v. Sullivan - Significance
- Rust v. Sullivan - Supreme Court Rejects Challenges To The "gag Rule" On Federally Funded Family Planning Clinics
- Other Free Encyclopedias