City of Boerne v. Flores

1997-06-25

Headline: Church denied a building permit leads Court to strike down federal RFRA as exceeding Congress’ Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power, limiting federal ability to override state and local laws affecting churches.

Holding: The Court held that Congress exceeded its enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it enacted RFRA, so the federal law cannot be applied to override state and local rules like local zoning.

Real World Impact:

Prevents RFRA from overturning state or local land-use rules.
Limits Congress’ power to impose broad religious exemptions on states.
Leaves churches to challenge local rules under existing constitutional standards.

Topics: religious liberty, historic preservation, federalism, zoning and land use

Summary

Background

A small Catholic parish sought to enlarge its historic church after the Archbishop approved plans, but the city’s historic-preservation rules blocked the building permit. The Archbishop sued in federal court relying on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The District Court said Congress had exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment; the Fifth Circuit disagreed. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court and reviewed whether Congress could make RFRA apply to states.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Congress had authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to force states and localities to follow RFRA. The Court said Section 5 lets Congress enforce existing constitutional guarantees, not rewrite what those guarantees mean. Legislation must show a close fit between the injury to be prevented and the remedy Congress adopts. RFRA applied everywhere, to all federal, state, and local laws, required the most demanding review of ordinary laws, and had no time or geographic limits. Because RFRA’s reach and rules were not sufficiently tied to preventing or remedying Fourteenth Amendment violations, the Court held the law exceeded Congress’ enforcement power and could not be used to override state or local rules like the zoning decision here.

Real world impact

The decision means churches and other religious claimants cannot rely on RFRA to displace state or local regulations unless Congress acts within the constitutional limits the Court describes. Local historic-preservation and zoning rules remain subject to state and federal constitutional doctrines as interpreted by this Court. Congress can still legislate, but must craft measures proportionate to proven constitutional harms.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Stevens said RFRA also raised a First Amendment establishment problem. Justice Scalia defended historical defenses of the Court’s free-exercise cases. Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Breyer urged reargument to reconsider the Smith free-exercise standard.