Bowen v. Kendrick

Background

A federal statute called the Adolescent Family Life Act authorized grants for services dealing with adolescent sexuality and pregnancy. The statute encouraged involvement by parents, charities, voluntary groups, and religious organizations and required applicants to explain how they would involve religious groups. A group of federal taxpayers, clergy, and the American Jewish Congress sued, and the District Court ruled the law unconstitutional both on its face and as applied, stopping grant-funded programs involving religious groups.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the law is facially invalid and whether particular grants unlawfully advance religion. The Court held that the statute has a legitimate secular purpose, is neutral on its face, and is not facially unconstitutional, but it remanded for the lower court to examine whether specific grants have been administered in a way that advances religion. The Court said challengers may show on remand that funds flowed to institutions that are “pervasively sectarian” or that grants funded explicitly religious instruction. The Court also recognized taxpayer standing to bring an as-applied challenge.

Real world impact

The ruling lets the federal grant program continue while requiring more careful review of individual awards. Religious and secular groups may still apply, but the Department of Health and Human Services must monitor how grantees use funds and can withdraw approvals if grants are used to promote religion. Because the decision is not a final merits ruling on specific grants, further litigation may narrow or stop particular programs.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the statute in practice endorsed religion and should be invalidated; concurrences urged rigorous fact-finding and said proof of religious use, not mere affiliation, is necessary to win an as-applied challenge.