This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The DHHS was given money by Congress under Title X to provide federal funding of family planning services. The act provided that none of the money shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. Rust (P) are Title X grantees and doctors who supervise Title X funds suing on behalf of themselves and their patients. Ps challenged the regulations on the grounds that Title X violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of Title X clients and the First Amendment rights of Title X health providers. After initially granting Ps a preliminary injunction, the District Court rejected Ps' statutory and constitutional challenges to the regulations and granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary (D). The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals determined that the regulations were a permissible construction of the statute that legitimately effectuated Congressional intent. The court rejected as 'highly strained,' Ps' contention that the plain language of § 1008 forbids Title X projects only from performing abortions. The Court of Appeals rejected Ps' Fifth Amendment challenge. It held that the regulations do not impermissibly burden a woman's right to an abortion, because the government may validly choose to favor childbirth over abortion and to implement that choice by funding medical services relating to childbirth but not those relating to abortion. The court rejected Ps' contention that the regulations 'facially discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint of the speech involved.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.