The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Wednesday, February 19, 1997
Decision: Wednesday, June 25, 1997
Issues: First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion
Tags: Rehnquist: Separation of Powers, Rehnquist on iTunes U

Advocates

Walter E. Dellinger, III (Argued the cause for the Federal respondent)
Marci A. Hamilton (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Douglas Laycock (Argued the cause for the respondent Flores)
Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause on behalf of Ohio et al., as amici curiae, support the petitioner)

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

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Full Opinion: First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion: 6 - 3
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence, joined Scalia's concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Kennedy
Disagreed with grant, authored a dissent from grant
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
Thomas
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
Ginsburg
Voted with the minority, joined O'Connor's dissent, authored a dissent
Breyer

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_2074/>
(last visited ).