Boerne v. Flores
**Overview of Boerne v. Flores**
Boerne v. Flores is a significant Supreme Court case that addresses the interaction between religious freedom and governmental powers. Originating from a dispute involving a Roman Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, the case arose when the city denied the church's request to build a new structure, citing historic preservation laws. In response, the church claimed that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 protected its right to construct the new building without governmental interference. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that the RFRA was unconstitutional, emphasizing that Congress does not have the authority to redefine constitutional protections but rather can only enforce them. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy articulated that this ruling reaffirmed the separation of powers, a fundamental principle in U.S. governance. The case reflects ongoing tensions between state interests, religious liberties, and the limits of legislative power, making it a pivotal point of reference in discussions of religious freedom in America.
Boerne v. Flores
Date: June 25, 1997
Citation: No. 95-2074
Issues: Separation of powers; freedom of religion
Significance: In striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Supreme Court declared that congressional enforcement powers in the Fourteenth Amendment may not be used to override the Court’s interpretations of the Constitution.
In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court required a compelling state interest as justification for any indirect restraint on religion. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith the Court allowed the states more discretion when balancing claims of religious freedom against the states’ interests in enacting and enforcing reasonable laws of general application. Congress responded to the controversial Smith decision with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which required states to apply the more demanding Sherbert standards. A Roman Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, desired to replace its old and small church building, but the city had classified the structure as an historic landmark that must be preserved. The bishop sued in federal court, asserting that the 1993 act prevented the city from interfering with the church’s decision to construct a new building.
By a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that the 1993 act was unconstitutional. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion argued that section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power only to enforce the rights protected by the amendment, not to decree the substantive meaning of the amendment. The clear intent of the 1993 act was to veto a constitutional interpretation made by the Court. Kennedy insisted that such a challenge to the Court’s proper authority is contrary to the U.S. tradition of separation of powers. Three justices dissented from the majority’s continued support for the Smith decision.