Bowen v. Kendrick’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
319 federal appellate · 104 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 885 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Agostini v. Felton Chancellor Board of Education of the City of New York (1997), Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia (1995)
319 federal appellate · 104 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 14 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1021 · 20 U.S.C. § 1070E · 20 U.S.C. § 2411 · 28 U.S.C. § 1252 · 42 U.S.C. § 2753 · 42 U.S.C. § 300Z · 42 U.S.C. § 5001
Relies on Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. · United States v. Salerno · Flast v. Cohen · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Lemon v. Kurtzman
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 885 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose,”
59 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he AFLA is at heart a program of disbursement of funds pursuant to Congress' taxing and spending powers, and appellees' claims call into question how the funds authorized by Congress are being disbursed pursuant to the AFLA's statutory mandate.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“it is not enough to show that the recipient of a challenged grant is affiliated with a religious institution or that it is “religiously inspired.” The District Court should also consider on remand whether in particular cases AFLA aid has been used to fund “specifically religious activit[ies] in an otherwise substantially secular setting.” Hunt, supra at 743, 93 S.Ct. at 2874. In Hunt, for example, we deemed it important that the conditions on which the aid was granted were sufficient to preclude the possibility that funds would be used for the construction of a building used for religious purposes. Here it would be relevant to determine, for example, whether the Secretary has permitted AFLA grantees to use materials that have an explicitly religious content or are designed to inculcate the views of a particular religious faith. As we have pointed out in our previous discussion, evidence that the views espoused on questions such as premarital sex, abortion, and the like happen to coincide with the religious views of the ALFA grantee would not be sufficient to show that the grant funds are being used in such a way as to have a primary effect of advancing religion ... Should the court conclude that the Secretary has wrongfully approved certain AFLA grants, an appropriate remedy would require the Secretary to withdraw such approval.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.