Bowen v. Kendrick

Background

The Government, acting as the applicant, asked a Justice in chambers to block a district court’s order that had enjoined enforcement of parts of the Adolescent Family Life Act. The District Court had prevented parts of this federal statute from being enforced after challengers filed suit. The applicant asked the Justice to keep those parts operating while the Government seeks review by the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Justice explained that it has long been the Court’s practice to take cases where a single district judge finds an Act of Congress unconstitutional and often to keep the law in effect while the Court decides the case. He emphasized the presumption that a statute is constitutional and noted that respondents and the applicant relied on different prior decisions. Respondents pointed to Wallace v. Jaffree, Aguilar v. Felton, and Grand Rapids School District v. Ball; the applicant relied on Roemer, Hunt, and Tilton. He also relied on earlier in-chambers opinions that emphasize a general presumption that Acts of Congress are constitutional. The Justice called the legal issue fairly debatable and said there was a "fair prospect" the Supreme Court could reverse the lower court, so he granted the stay pending appeal.

Real world impact

The immediate result is that the parts of the Adolescent Family Life Act that the District Court had blocked remain enforceable while appeals proceed. That delays any relief challengers won in the lower court and preserves the status quo until the Supreme Court rules on the merits. This order is not a final decision on constitutionality; the Court’s later merits decision could either allow enforcement to continue or reinstate the lower court’s injunction.