## Facts

- The CDC conditioned federal AIDS/HIV education grants on compliance with content guidelines for educational materials.
- Revised guidelines included an “offensiveness” criterion barring use of materials “offensive to the target audience or to the majority of individuals outside the target audience.”
- The CDC added local Program Review Panels (PRPs) to evaluate challenged materials.
- Under the revision, materials offensive to a majority outside the target audience could be approved if a PRP found their prevention value outweighed their potential offensiveness.
- Plaintiffs were AIDS service and education organizations and New York State entities that relied heavily on CDC funding to deliver targeted HIV-prevention messages, including to gay men and other high-risk groups.
- Plaintiffs alleged the offensiveness criterion was overbroad and vague, chilled medically accurate and culturally appropriate materials, and vested excessive discretion in local decisionmakers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment; plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on constitutional claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the CDC developed the revised grant terms after detailed and reasoned consideration.
2. Whether the content restrictions, including the offensiveness criterion and PRP mechanism, were rationally related to legitimate governmental purposes within the funded program.
3. Whether the terms were applied so inconsistently or arbitrarily as to warrant facial invalidation.
4. Whether the offensiveness standard was void for vagueness because it failed to give adequate notice and invited arbitrary enforcement, in violation of the First Amendment and due process principles.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the principal facial First Amendment and vagueness challenges and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court found the administrative record showed detailed and reasoned consideration, including public input and revisions addressing criticisms.
- The court held the offensiveness criterion and PRP balancing were rationally related to program objectives, including maintaining public acceptability of federally funded materials while permitting effective prevention messaging when justified.
- The court rejected the claim that the standard was void for vagueness or facially arbitrary, concluding that variability across communities did not establish unconstitutional enforcement on the record presented.
- The challenged guidelines remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- In administering a federal funding program, the government may define the contours of the subsidized activity and impose content-based limits tied to program goals, so long as it does not prohibit privately funded speech outside the program or target viewpoints.
- Conditions on use of grant funds are reviewed deferentially where they operate as program-definition measures; a key inquiry is whether the agency acted with reasoned consideration and whether conditions are rationally related to legitimate program purposes.
- A standard is not void for vagueness merely because it requires judgment; due process does not require mathematical certainty if the benchmark is sufficiently ascertainable and administrative structure reduces arbitrary decisionmaking.
- Evidence of disagreement among local reviewers or some variation in outcomes does not, without more, establish facial arbitrariness or unconstitutional discrimination.

## Conclusion

The court upheld CDC grant guidelines restricting federally funded HIV-education materials based on an “offensiveness” standard, concluding the agency’s revised approach was reasoned, rationally related to program purposes, and not facially vague or unconstitutionally arbitrary, while leaving grantees free to use nonfederal funds for materials outside the program’s limits.


Gay Men’s Health Crisis v. Sullivan, 792 F. Supp. 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)