Bowen v. Kendrick (1988)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information
The Adolescent Family Life Act (1982) allowed the use of federal money for research on premarital adolescent sexuality. The funds could be given to religious organizations if they also offered counseling services for the purpose of reducing teen pregnancies.
The Act was challenged by a group of taxpayers who argued that it violated the Establishment Clause. According to them, taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund any portion of what is essentially a program of religiously based instruction about sexuality.
Court Decision
In a 5-4 Court Decision written by Chief Justice Rhenquist, the Court allowed federal funds to be given to religious organizations offering counseling consistent with the AFLA. In passing the Act, Congress reasoned that religious organizations had a unique ability to assist in the problem - so if this advances religion it only does so incidentally. Thus the Court decided that the Act takes a neutral approach to religion because it does not use religious affiliation as a consideration in allocating funds.
We 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... with those of religious institutions.
The application for funds required organizations to list how the money will be spent, and this allowed the government to make sure that money was not spent to further religious purposes. The monitoring that occurs did not, however, create an 'excessive entanglement' between church and state.
Significance
This decision differed from earlier rulings in which the Court showed more skepticism that religious organizations could be trusted to offer secular education. Thus, the Court decided that the government could monitor without violating the third prong of the Lemon test. The mere existence of oversight was acceptable - but how much more would violate the "excessive entanglement" clause was left unsaid.
-->