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.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
City of Boerne v. Flores canonical	14
City of Boerne v. Flores congruence and proportionality test	1
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)	1
City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, and United States	1

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 ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ surface form: 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 ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
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 v. Flores self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: 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 ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
jurisdiction	federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalPrinciple	congruence and proportionality test for Section 5 legislation ⓘ
locationOfDispute	Boerne, Texas ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
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 ⓘ surface form: 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 (17)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act → limitedByCourtCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Enforcement Clause → usedInCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Enforcement Clause → standardArticulatedIn → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

this entity surface form: City of Boerne v. Flores congruence and proportionality test

Public Law 103-141 → relatedCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

this entity surface form: City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

City of Boerne v. Flores → fullCaseName → City of Boerne v. Flores self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, and United States

United States v. Morrison → relatedTo → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment → interpretedByCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Rehnquist Court → landmarkDecision → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

City of Boerne, Texas → roleIn → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

City of Boerne, Texas → jurisdictionOf → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio → notableWork → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

subject surface form: P. F. Flores

P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio → participantIn → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

subject surface form: P. F. Flores

P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio → legalCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

subject surface form: P. F. Flores

Boerne, Texas → associatedCourtCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Tennessee v. Lane → followsCaseLawFrom → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett → precedentReliedOn → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs → relatedCase → City of Boerne v. Flores ⓘ