CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
95-2074
Petitioner 
City of Boerne
Respondent 
Flores
Advocates
(Argued the cause on behalf of Ohio et al., as amici curiae, support the petitioner)
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
(Argued the cause for the Federal respondent)
(Argued the cause for the respondent Flores)
Tags
Term:
Location: City Hall
Facts of the Case 

The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning authorities for violating his rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), by denying him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas. Boerne's zoning authorities argued that the Archbishop's church was located in a historic preservation district governed by an ordinance forbidding new construction, and that the RFRA was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to override this local preservation ordinance. On appeal from the Fifth Circuit's reversal of a District Court's finding against Archbishop Flores, the Court granted Boerne's request for certiorari.

Question 

Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation?

Conclusion 
Decision: 6 votes for City of Boerne, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause

Yes. Under the RFRA, the government is prohibited from "substantially burden[ing]" religion's free exercise unless it must do so to further a compelling government interest, and, even then, it may only impose the least restrictive burden. The Court held that while Congress may enact such legislation as the RFRA, in an attempt to prevent the abuse of religious freedoms, it may not determine the manner in which states enforce the substance of its legislative restrictions. This, the Court added, is precisely what the RFRA does by overly restricting the states' freedom to enforce its spirit in a manner which they deem most appropriate. With respect to this case, specifically, there was no evidence to suggest that Boerne's historic preservation ordinance favored one religion over another, or that it was based on animus or hostility for free religious exercise.

Cite this Page
CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 November 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_2074>.
CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_2074 (last visited November 23, 2014).
"CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed November 23, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_2074.