Religious Freedom Page: Bowen v. Kendrick

Bowen v. Kendrick

487 U.S. 589 (1988)

Facts of the Case:

The Adolescent Family Life Act allowed for the use of federal funds to do research into the subject of premarital adolescent sexuality. The funds were allowed to be given to religious organizations if they offered counseling services. The Act was challenged by a group of taxpayers who claimed that it violated the Establishment Clause.

Decision:

In a 5-4 decision, the Court allowed federal funds to be given to religious organizations offering counseling consistent with the purposes advocated in the AFLA.

Majority Opinion: (Chief Justice Rehnquist)

Congress determined that religious organizations had a unique ability to assist in this problem. If this advances religion it only does so incidentally. The Act takes a neutral approach to religion because it does not use religious affiliation as a consideration in allocating funds. "[W]e do not think the possibility that AFLA grants may go to religious institutions that can be considered "pervasively sectarian" is sufficient to conclude that no grants whatsoever can be given under the statute to religious organizations...On an issue as sensitive and important as teenage sexuality, it is not surprising that the Government's secular concerns would either coincide or conflict with those of religious institutions." The application for funds requires the organizations to list how the money will be spent. This allows the government to ensure that the money is not spent to further religious purposes. The monitoring that will occur does not create 'excessive entanglement'.

Dissenting Opinion: (Justice Blackmun:)

This is a case of religious toleration, not simply one of establishment, as a minority religious sect with peculiar customs is being accommodated. The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent powerful religious groups from oppressing others and should not apply to this case, which "involves only public aid to a school that is as public as can be."

Significance:

This decision differs from other rulings in which the Court was skeptical that religious organizations could be trusted to offer secular education. Also, the Court in this case believed that the government could monitor this education without violating the third prong of the Lemon test.