City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
Author: Bram

Relevant Facts:  The Archbishop of SA applied for a building permit to enlarge St. Peter Catholic Church in Boerne,, TX.  City authorities denied the application b/c, under a local ordinance, the church was within a historic district.  Archbishop then brought suit, arguing that the permit denial violated the RFRA.  The city responded that RFRA was unenforceable b/c it was unconstitutional.

Issue: Under constitutional law, may a local government sanction a local authority's passage of an ordinance to ban construction on religious historical landmarks when opposition interposes the claim that the same ordinance infringes upon those rights protected by the RFRA?

Holding: Yes.  The RFRA is not designed to identify and counteract state laws likely to be unconstitutional b/c of their treatment of religion.  In most cases, the state laws to which RFRA applied are not ones which will have been motivated by religious bigotry.

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Court ruled that Religious Freedom Restoration Act (an Act intended to restore the "compelling state interest test" for evaluating Free Exercise Clause claims that the Court discarded in its 1990 decision, Employment Division v Smith) was unconstitutional, at least as applied to state and local governments. 

The Court concluded that the Constitution, and in particular Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, gave no power to Congress to do more than adopt remedial measures consistent with Fourteenth Amendment interpretations of the Court, and that Congress had instead tried to changed the substantive law--substituting its interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause for that of the Supreme Court.

Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.  The stringent test RFRA demands of state laws reflects a lack of proportionality or congruence between the means adopted and the legitimate end to be achieved.

Rule: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (compelling interest test): facially neutral laws that "substantially burden a person" is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." (relied upon by section 5 of the 14th Amendment to impose this approach on both state and local governments).

Important Dicta:  If an objector can show a substantial burden on his free exercise, the State must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and show that the law is the least restrictive means of furthering its interest.

Dissenting:  N/A.

Concurring: N/A.