42 C.F.R. § 59.9
For what purpose may grant funds be used?
Any funds granted under this subpart shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds were granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations of this subpart, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicable cost principles prescribed in 2 CFR parts 200 and 300, subpart E.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). “42 CFR § 59.9 (1989). *197 In contrast, our "unconstitutional conditions" cases involve situations in which the Government has placed a condition on the recipient of the subsidy rather than on a particular program or service, thus effectively prohibiting the recipient from…”
All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. United States Agency for Int'l Dev., 651 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2011). “1759 (quoting 42 C.F.R. § 59.9 (1989)). The Rust plaintiffs argued that the regulations violated the First Amendment because they "discriminat[ed] based on viewpoint [by] prohibit[ing] all discussion about abortion as a lawful option," and because they conditioned the receipt of…”
Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321 (2013). “*217 We explained that Congress can, without offending the Constitution, selectively fund certain programs to address an issue of public concern, without funding alternative ways of addressing the same problem.”
State of Ohio v. Xavier Becerra, 87 F.4th 759 (6th Cir. 2023). “42 C.F.R. § 59.9 (1989).” 500 U.S. at 196 .”
Com. of Mass. v. Bowen, 679 F. Supp. 137 (D. Mass. 1988). “42 C.F.R. § 59.9 (1988). The regulations also define “Title X project funds,” for the first time, to include “all funds allocated to the Title X program, including, but not limited to grant funds, grant-related income or matching funds.”
New York v. Sullivan, 889 F.2d 401 (2d Cir. 1989). “” 42 C.F.R. § 59.9 (1988). The integrity and independence of Title X projects are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”
All. for Open Soc'y Int'l, Inc. v. United States Agency for Int'l Dev., 570 F. Supp. 2d 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “1759 (quoting 42 C.F.R. § 59.9 (1989)). The regulations at issue in Rust enumerated various factors considered by the Government to determine the existence of adequate separation, including: (1) separate accounting records and separate personnel; (2) the degree of separation…”
Carmen Velazquez v. Legal Servs. Corp., United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 164 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 1999). “Under both Title X and the 1996 Act regulatory schemes, a grantee may provide restricted activities only if the restricted sendee provider is distinguished by (1) separate personnel; (2) separate accounting records; (3) physical separation; and (4) signs or other outward markers…”
Planned Parenthood of Cent. Texas v. Sanchez, 280 F. Supp. 2d 590 (W.D. Tex. 2003). “The Title X grantee can continue to perform abortions, provide abortion-related services, and engage in abortion advocacy; it simply is required to conduct those activities through programs that are separate and independent from the project that receives Title X funds.”
Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Sullivan, 913 F.2d 1492 (10th Cir. 1990). “But the court held that all of the amendments violated the constitutional rights of women to make informed decisions concerning abortion, and violated the consulting physicians’ First Amendment rights to properly advise their patients.”
Legal Aid Soc. of Hawaii v. Legal Servs. Corp., 961 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Haw. 1997). “” 42 C.F.R. § 59.9 (1995) Rather, the Rust regulations inquired into whether the funded project had “objective integrity and independence from prohibited activities.”
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 899 F.2d 53 (1st Cir. 1990). “42 C.F.R. § 59.9 . The Title X entities must have “an objective integrity and independence” that reaches beyond separate bookkeeping to include separation of accounting records, facilities and personnel and even separate signs for the federally and nonfederally funded activities.”
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.