City of Boerne v. Flores

City of Boerne v. Flores was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that fundamentally reshaped the legal landscape of religious liberty. The case centered on the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as applied to state and local governments. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that Congress had overstepped its enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring the relevant provisions of the act unconstitutional. This decision established a critical precedent limiting congressional power to enact legislation that supersedes Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

Background and legal context

The dispute originated in Boerne, Texas, where the local Catholic archdiocese, led by Archbishop Patrick Flores, sought to expand the historic St. Peter Catholic Church to accommodate a growing congregation. The city's historic landmark commission denied the building permit, citing the structure's location within a historic preservation district. The archdiocese sued, invoking the recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which required governments to demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when substantially burdening religious exercise. This federal law was a direct congressional response to the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, had significantly lowered the standard of protection for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause. Congress, with broad bipartisan support including from legislators like Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Orrin Hatch, sought to restore the stricter "compelling interest" test that had been applied in earlier cases like Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder.

Supreme Court decision

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered a forceful opinion on the limits of congressional power. The Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was not a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the provisions of the amendment. Justice Kennedy drew a sharp distinction between remedial or preventive legislation and legislation that effectively redefines the substantive scope of constitutional rights, a power reserved for the judiciary. The opinion emphasized that while Congress could enact laws to prevent or remedy violations of rights recognized by the Supreme Court, it could not alter the Court's interpretation of what those rights are. The decision reinforced the principle of judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation, a concept traceable to Marbury v. Madison. Concurring opinions by Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Antonin Scalia further elaborated on the separation of powers concerns. A passionate dissent by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined in part by Justice Stephen Breyer, argued for upholding the act and criticized the Smith precedent itself.

Impact on Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The immediate effect of the Boerne decision was to invalidate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as it applied to states, cities, and other local government entities. The act remained in force as a constraint on the federal government, as seen in later cases like Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal. In response, numerous states, including Texas, Illinois, and Florida, enacted their own state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to provide heightened protection for religious exercise within their jurisdictions. The decision also spurred congressional efforts to craft more targeted religious liberty legislation, which eventually led to the passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. This statute, grounded in Congress's spending and commerce powers, was designed to protect religious exercise in specific contexts like zoning and prisons, and was upheld by the Court in Cutter v. Wilkinson.

Subsequent developments and influence

The reasoning in City of Boerne v. Flores has had a profound and lasting influence on federalism and the scope of congressional enforcement power. It established the "congruence and proportionality" test, which requires that legislation enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment must show a congruence between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. This test was applied in subsequent cases to strike down or limit other federal statutes, such as portions of the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as applied to states in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. The decision remains a cornerstone of modern Eleventh Amendment and state sovereignty jurisprudence, frequently cited in debates over the balance of power between Congress, the federal judiciary, and the states. It continues to shape litigation over the boundaries of civil rights enforcement and religious liberty protections.

See also

* Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution * Employment Division v. Smith * Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act * Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment * Archbishop of San Antonio * Free Exercise Clause * Judicial supremacy * United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Category:United States Free Exercise Clause case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:1997 in United States case law