City of Boerne v. Flores

E39104

United States Supreme Court case federal courts case landmark constitutional law case

City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.

Aliases (3)

Statements (48)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case → federal courts case → landmark constitutional law case →
areaOfLaw	constitutional law → federalism → religious liberty →
arguedDate	1997-02-19 →
citation	521 U.S. 507 →
citedFor	congruence and proportionality standard →
concurrenceBy	Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED → Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED → John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED →
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	First Amendment to the United States Constitution → Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution → Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment →
court	Supreme Court of the United States →
decidedBy	Rehnquist Court →
decisionDate	1997-06-25 →
decisionType	majority decision with concurrences and dissents →
dissentBy	David H. Souter NERFINISHED → Sandra Day O’Connor → Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED →
docketNumber	95-2074 →
effect	limited Congress’s ability to redefine the scope of constitutional rights under Section 5 → strengthened judicial role in defining the substance of constitutional rights →
factualBackground	dispute over denial of a building permit to expand a Catholic church in a historic district →
fullCaseName	City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, and United States →
holding	Congress exceeded its enforcement powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment in applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the states → The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments →
issue	scope of Congress’s enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment → validity of RFRA as applied to the states →
joinedMajority	Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED → Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED → John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED → Ruth Bader Ginsburg → Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED → William H. Rehnquist →
jurisdiction	federal question jurisdiction →
legalPrinciple	congruence and proportionality test for Section 5 legislation →
locationOfDispute	Boerne, Texas →
majorityOpinionBy	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED →
party	City of Boerne, Texas → P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio →
precedentFor	cases evaluating Congress’s Section 5 enforcement power →
result	Religious Freedom Restoration Act remained applicable to the federal government but not to the states →
statuteAtIssue	Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 →
subsequentDevelopment	led to enactment of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 →
yearDecided	1997 →

Referenced by (7)

Subject (surface form when different)	Predicate
City of Boerne v. Flores ("City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, and United States") →	fullCaseName
Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment →	interpretedByCase
Religious Freedom Restoration Act →	limitedByCourtCase
Public Law 103-141 ("City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)") →	relatedCase
United States v. Morrison →	relatedTo
Enforcement Clause ("City of Boerne v. Flores congruence and proportionality test") →	standardArticulatedIn
Enforcement Clause →	usedInCase