City of Boerne v. Flores

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress 's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment . The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation .

In this case, the Court enjoined enforcement of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as it applied to the states, stating the statute was an unconstitutional use of Congress's enforcement powers. Legal scholars have criticized this case stating that, "Without RFRA, questions of religious freedom will be decided in different ways in different states, and even for different religious groups." Scholars also stated that, "This places smaller religions at a relative disadvantage- a situation inconsistent with the governing ideal of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Contents

• 1 Facts

• 2 Religious Freedom Restoration Act

• 3 Result

  • 3.1 District Court

  • 3.2 Supreme Court

• 4 Implications

  • 4.1 Congruence and proportionality

  • 4.2 Power of enforcement

  • 4.3 Constitutionality of the RFRA

  • 4.4 Historic preservation

• 5 See also

• 6 References

• 7 Further reading

• 8 External links

Facts

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts")

The basis for dispute arose when the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio , Patrick Flores , applied for a building permit to enlarge the 1923 mission-style St. Peter's Church in Boerne, Texas , which was originally built by German residents. The building was located in a historic district and was considered a contributing property . Local zoning authorities denied the permit, citing an ordinance governing additions and new construction in a historic district. The archbishop brought suit, challenging the ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Flores argued that the Boerne congregation had outgrown the existing structure, rendering the ruling a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without a compelling state interest.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Religious Freedom Restoration Act")

RFRA had been crafted as a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision in _Employment Division v. Smith _, when the Court had upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, an Oregon law criminalizing peyote use, which was used in Native American religious rituals. The State of Oregon won on the basis that the drug laws were "non-discriminatory laws of general applicability".

Religious groups became concerned that this case would be cited as precedent for further regulation of common religious practices and lobbied Congress for legislative protection. RFRA provided a strict scrutiny standard, requiring narrowly tailored regulation serving a compelling government interest in any case substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, regardless of the intent and general applicability of the law.

The RFRA applies to all laws passed by Congress prior to its enactment and to all future laws that are not explicitly exempted. (42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3) Congress's power to do so was not challenged. Congress also applied the law to state and local governments - in this case, the City of Boerne - relying on the Fourteenth Amendment , particularly Section 5: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Result

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Result")

District Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: District Court")

The City of Boerne was successful at the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ; the district judge certified the question of the constitutionality of RFRA to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit , which found the RFRA constitutional. Boerne filed a _certiorari _ petition to the Supreme Court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, among other preservation organizations, filed briefs in support of Boerne.

Supreme Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Supreme Court")

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy , struck down RFRA as it applies to the states as an unconstitutional use of Congress's enforcement powers. The Court held that it holds the sole power to define the substantive rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment—a definition to which Congress may not add and from which it may not subtract. Congress could not constitutionally enact RFRA because the law was not designed to have "congruence and proportionality" with the substantive rights that the Court had defined. Although Congress could enact "remedial" or "preventative" legislation to guarantee rights not exactly congruent with those defined by the Court, it could only do so to more effectively prevent, deter, or correct violations of those rights actually guaranteed by the Court. RFRA was seen to be disproportionate in its effects compared to its objective. Justice Kennedy wrote:

Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described the power as "remedial". The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]". (citations omitted)

Moreover, remedial or prophylactic legislation still had to show "congruence and proportionality" between the end it aimed to reach (that is, the violations it aimed to correct), and the means it chose to reach those ends—that is, the penalties or prohibitions it enacted to prevent or correct those violations. Because RFRA was not reasonably remedial or preventative, it was unconstitutional.

Implications

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Implications")

Congruence and proportionality

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Boerne_v._Flores&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: Congruence and proportionality")

Boerne is important for several reasons. One is that it introduced a completely new test for deciding whether Congress had exceeded its Section 5 powers: the "congruence and proportionali

…