(a) The notice of grant award specifies how long HHS intends to support the project without requiring the project to recompete for funds. This anticipated period will usually be for three to five years.
(b) Generally, the grant will initially be for one year and subsequent continuation awards will also be for one year at a time. A recipient must submit a separate application to have the support continued for each subsequent year. Decisions regarding continuation awards and the funding level of such awards will be made after consideration of such factors as the recipient's progress and management practices and the availability of funds. In all cases, continuation awards require a determination by HHS that continued funding is in the best interest of the government.
(c) Neither the approval of any application nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the United States in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
Rust v. Sullivan
Rust v. Sullivan (1991)
scotus · cites it 6×
“" 42 CFR § 59.8 (a)(1) (1989). Because Title X is limited to preconceptional services, the program does not furnish services related to childbirth.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1990)
ca1 · cites it 7×
“42 C.F.R. § 59.8 . Specifically, they prohibit counseling or referral for abortion as a method of family planning and require that all Title X clients diagnosed as pregnant receive “a list of available providers that promote the welfare of mother and unborn child” as well as…”
Com. of Mass. v. Bowen (1988)
mad · cites it 7×
“42 C.F.R. § 59.8 (a)(1) (1988). (2) Once a client is diagnosed as pregnant, she must be provided with a list of providers that promote the welfare of the mother and unborn child.”
Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook (2009)
ill
“A group of Title X grantees and doctors brought suit challenging the facial validity of the regulations and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent their implementation. The plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the regulations violated their first amendment rights…”
Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. Bowen (1988)
cod · cites it 4×
“8, 1988) (to be codified at 42 C.F.R. § 59.8 (a)(2)). Defendant’s departure from its contemporaneous and consistent interpretation of § 1008 is an important factor supporting the Court’s conclusion that § 1008 does not authorize defendant to enact the regulations at issue.”
Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp. (1997)
nyed · cites it 3×
“at 1764 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 59.8 (a)(1) (1989)). Second, doctors were absolutely prohibited from referring clients to a project which performed abortions, which included any affiliate of the project.”
New York v. Sullivan (1989)
ca2 · cites it 7×
“” 42 C.F.R. § 59.8 (a)(1) (1988). Section 59-8(a)(3) goes on to explain: (3) A Title X project may not use prenatal, social service or emergency medical or other referrals as an indirect means of encouraging or promoting abortion as a method of family planning, such as by…”
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra (2024)
ca6 · cites it 4×
“42 C.F.R. § 59.8 (a)–(b). When “non– Federal” entities fail to comply with the “[f]ederal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions” of an award, HHS is empowered to terminate the grant.”
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Becerra (2025)
ca6 · cites it 4×
“42 C.F.R. § 59.8 (a)–(b). When “non– Federal” entities fail to comply with the “[f]ederal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions” of an award, HHS is empowered to terminate the grant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.