## Facts

- Congress enacted the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) to address social and economic problems associated with adolescent premarital sexual relations, pregnancy, and parenthood.
- AFLA authorized federal grants to public or nonprofit private organizations to provide counseling, educational services, and research relating to “family life” and problems associated with adolescent premarital sexual relations.
- AFLA stated that addressing the problem required involvement from private-sector groups, including religious and charitable organizations; it barred use of funds for family planning services or promotion of abortion.
- Federal taxpayers and related plaintiffs challenged AFLA under the Establishment Clause, alleging that funding religiously affiliated organizations for counseling and education impermissibly advanced religion.
- The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and invalidated AFLA in its entirety on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause on its face and as applied.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether AFLA is unconstitutional on its face under the Establishment Clause because it permits and encourages participation by religious organizations in federally funded programs.
2. Whether AFLA is unconstitutional as applied based on the record of particular grants and program implementation involving religious organizations.

## Decision

- The Court held AFLA is facially constitutional and reversed the district court’s total invalidation of the statute.
- Applying the Lemon test, the Court found:
  - AFLA had a secular purpose: reducing adverse consequences of teen sexuality, pregnancy, and parenthood.
  - AFLA did not have the primary effect of advancing religion on its face because it made religious organizations eligible on the same terms as other nonprofits and funded activities not inherently religious.
  - Routine grant application review and monitoring did not, by itself, create excessive government entanglement with religion.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings on the as-applied challenge to determine whether any specific grants funded activities whose primary effect was to advance religion or created unconstitutional entanglement.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- A statute does not violate the Establishment Clause on its face merely because religious organizations are eligible to receive public funds on neutral terms for secular services.
- Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, Establishment Clause analysis examines secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive entanglement; neutral eligibility and nonreligious program content weigh against facial invalidation.
- Government oversight to ensure grant funds are lawfully used is generally permissible and does not automatically amount to excessive entanglement, even when recipients include religious organizations.
- Facial approval of a funding scheme does not bar as-applied challenges; courts may require factual development to assess whether particular funded programs cross the line into religious instruction or endorsement.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld AFLA against a facial Establishment Clause challenge because it pursued secular aims and allowed religious and nonreligious organizations to compete for grants on neutral criteria, but it required further factfinding to determine whether any specific federally funded programs impermissibly advanced religion or created excessive church-state entanglement.


Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988)