Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02251/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02251-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

FI LED 

Uaited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

AUG 51991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk TENTH CIRCUIT 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF ) 

AMERICA, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ) 

ROCKY MOUNTAINS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD) 

ASSOCIATION OF UTAH, BOULDER VALLEY) 

WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, MARILYN ) 

FOELSKI, M.D., PHILIP FREEDMAN, ) 

M.D., and KIRTLY JONES, M.D., ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

LOUIS SULLIVAN, M.D., individually 

and in his capacity as Secretary 

of the United States Department of 

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OPINION ON REMAND 

Submitted on the briefs: 

No. 88-2251 

(D.C. No. 88-Z-158) 

(D. Colorado) 

Roger K. Evans, Dara Klassel, Eve w. Paul, and Carole I. Chervin, 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., New York, New 

York; Edwin s. Kahn and James w. Hubbell of Kelly/Haglund/Garnsey 

and Kahn, Denver, Colorado, for plaintiffs-appellees. 

Michael Jay Singer and Alfred Mollin, Attorneys, Civil Division, 

Appellate Staff, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for 

defendant-appellant. 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-2251 Document: 01019647908 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 1 
This matter is before us on remand from the United States 

Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and remanded for our 

reconsideration in light of Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. ~~' 111 

S. Ct. 1759 (1991). 1 Our opinion is reported as Planned 

Parenthood Federation of America v. Sullivan, 913 F.2d 1492 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Over Judge Baldock's dissent, we found that the 1988 

amendments to the· regulations under Title X of the Public Health 

Service Act, 42 u.s.c. §§ 300 to 300a-6, see 53 Fed. Reg. 2922, 

2943-46 (1988), codified at 42 C.F.R. §§ 59.2, 59.5, 59.7-59.10, 

were invalid, principally on constitutional grounds. The Supreme 

Court, considering a decision of the Second Circuit, upheld the 

1988 amendments to the regulations as permissible under the 

congressional act and as not violating any constitutional rights 

of the patients, the organizations receiving funds, or its staff 

physicians. 

Plaintiffs have filed briefs after the remand arguing that 

Rust did not consider certain issues that should lead us to hold 

that portions of the regulations are invalid on statutory or 

constitutional grounds. They argue that although the Supreme 

Court ruled in Rust that the regulations did not contravene the 

Title X statute the Court did not specifically consider their 

conflict with the nondiscrimination provisions of the statute, a 

ground on which our panel opinion invalidated 42 C.F.R. § 59.9, 

nor the effect of the regulations on the Title X grantees use of 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2251 Document: 01019647908 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 2 
matching funds in excess of the ten percent contemplated by 

statute. Plaintiffs also argue that the regulation's separation 

standards in§ 59.9 are unconstitutionally vague for various 

reasons. They argue that § 59.10 violates the statute and the 

First .Amendment in that by excluding one viewpoint of advocacy 

speech the regulation necessarily allows the opposite viewpoint 

(inclusio unius est exclusio alterius), citing their perception of 

its effects on libraries and education centers maintained by Title 

X grantees which contain books with factual information about 

abortion. We have considered these arguments and are convinced 

that they were necessarily considered by the Supreme Court when in 

Rust it upheld the regulations in their entirety as not violating 

either the Title X statute or the constitution. The effect of 

Rust was to overrule our holding to the contrary. 

We have vacated our earlier judgment. We now conclude that 

the Supreme Court's action in Rust requires that the judgment of 

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado 

granting a permanent injunction against the implementation of the 

challenged amendments to the regulations be reversed. The cause 

is remanded to the United States District Court for the District 

of Colorado for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion 

of this court and of the United States Supreme Court in Rust. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2251 Document: 01019647908 Date Filed: 08/05/1991 Page: 3