City of Boerne v. Flores
| City of Boerne v. Flores | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 19, 1997 Decided June 25, 1997 |
|
| Full case name | City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio, and United States |
| Citations | 521 U.S. 507 (more)
117 S. Ct. 2157; 138 L. Ed. 2d 624; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4035; 65 U.S.L.W. 4612; 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 62; 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44,785; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4904; 97 Daily Journal DAR 7973; 1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1329; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 140
|
| Prior history | 877 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Tex. 1995), rev'd, 73 F.3d 1352 (5th Cir.), rehearing en banc denied, 83 F.3d 421 (5th Cir.), cert. granted, 519 U.S. 926 (1996) |
| Subsequent history | District court affirmed and remanded, 119 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1997) |
| Holding | |
| Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg; Scalia (all but part III-A-1) |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Stevens |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Breyer (except a portion of part I) |
| Dissent | Souter |
| Dissent | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV; Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. | |
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a US Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
The basis for dispute arose when the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, Patrick Flores, applied for a building permit to enlarge his 1923 mission-style St. Peter's Church in Boerne, Texas. The building was located in a historic district and considered a contributing property. Local zoning authorities denied the permit, citing an ordinance governing additions and new construction in a historic district. The Archbishop brought suit, challenging the ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Flores argued that his congregation had outgrown the existing structure, rendering the ruling a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without a compelling state interest.
RFRA had been crafted as a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), when the Court had upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, an Oregon law criminalizing peyote use, which was used in Native American religious rituals. The State of Oregon won on the basis that the drug laws were "non-discriminatory laws of general applicability."
...
Wikipedia