The Unconstitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Exploring the City of Boerne v. Flores Case

The City of Boerne v. Flores case, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1997, centered around the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This landmark case raised important questions about the scope of Congress’s power to protect religious freedom and its relationship to state and local governments. Through its ruling, the Court determined that the RFRA violated the Fourteenth Amendment by substantially burdening state and local governments. This article examines the background, legal principle at issue, and court decisions in the City of Boerne v. Flores case.

Case Background

In 1993, the St. Peter Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, sought permission from the city’s Landmark Commission to expand the church within the city’s designated historic district. However, the commission denied the request, citing a local ordinance that aimed to preserve the historical character of the district. The church, believing that the denial violated its rights under the RFRA, filed a lawsuit against the city.

The RFRA, passed by Congress in 1993, was a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990). In that case, the Court held that laws not specifically targeting religion are constitutional even if they burden religious practices. The RFRA aimed to establish a higher standard for evaluating laws that burdened the free exercise of religion, providing additional protection for religious freedom.

Legal Principle at Issue

At the heart of the City of Boerne v. Flores case was the question of whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact the RFRA. The case raised concerns about the balance of power between the federal government and state and local governments, particularly regarding the protection of religious freedom.

Court Decisions

The case went through multiple court decisions before reaching the United States Supreme Court. Initially, the trial court ruled that the RFRA was unconstitutional because it encroached upon the authority of the judiciary to establish constitutional standards. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the RFRA was constitutional as it did not usurp the judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution.

Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court decided 6-3 in City of Boerne v. Flores that the RFRA violated the Fourteenth Amendment by substantially burdening state and local governments. The Court held that Congress had exceeded its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it passed the RFRA. It established that Congress cannot enact legislation that provides freedoms or rights beyond those set forth in the Constitution, firmly establishing itself as the sole authority to interpret the Constitution.

Conclusion

The City of Boerne v. Flores case had significant implications for the constitutional balance between federal and state powers. The Court’s ruling declared the RFRA unconstitutional, emphasizing the limits of Congress’s authority to protect religious freedom. This decision underscored the Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution and solidified the constitutional framework for evaluating laws that burden the free exercise of religion.

Sources:

• “City of Boerne v. Flores.” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Boerne_v._Flores.
• “City of Boerne v. Flores.” FIRE – Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/city-boerne-v-p-f-flores-archbishop-san-antonio-and-united-states.
• “Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court: City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).” Thirteen – WNET, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_boernes.html.

FAQs

What was the City of Boerne v. Flores case about?

The City of Boerne v. Flores case was about the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It involved a dispute between the St. Peter Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, and the city’s Landmark Commission regarding the church’s request to expand within a historic district.

What was the main legal principle at issue in the City of Boerne v. Flores case?

The main legal principle at issue was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact the RFRA, which established a higher standard for evaluating laws that burdened the free exercise of religion.

What were the court decisions in the City of Boerne v. Flores case?

The case went through multiple court decisions. Initially, the trial court ruled the RFRA unconstitutional, citing encroachment upon the judiciary’s authority to establish constitutional standards. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the RFRA was constitutional. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the RFRA violated the Fourteenth Amendment by substantially burdening state and local governments.

How did the Supreme Court justify its ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores?

The Supreme Court justified its ruling by stating that Congress had exceeded its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it passed the RFR The Court established that Congress cannot enact legislation that provides freedoms or rights beyond those set forth in the Constitution, asserting its role as the sole authority to interpret the Constitution.

What impact did the City of Boerne v. Flores case have on religious freedom?

The City of Boerne v. Flores case had a significant impact on religious freedom. The Supreme Court’s ruling declared the RFRA unconstitutional, emphasizing the limits of Congress’s authority to protect religious freedom. The decision established a constitutional framework for evaluating laws that burden the free exercise of religion and solidified the Court’s role as the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution.