Boerne v. Flores: RFRA Exceeds Congressional Enforcement Power under the Fourteenth Amendment

Boerne v. Flores: RFRA Exceeds Congressional Enforcement Power under the Fourteenth Amendment

Introduction

Boerne v. Flores is a landmark Supreme Court decision rendered on June 25, 1997, addressing the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The case arose when Archbishops P.F. Flores of San Antonio sought a building permit to enlarge St. Peter Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas. The local zoning authorities denied the permit based on a historic preservation ordinance, prompting Flores to challenge the denial under RFRA. The core legal issue centered on whether RFRA exceeded Congress's enforcement powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The petitioner, the City of Boerne, argued that RFRA went beyond the constitutional authority granted to Congress, while the respondent, Archbishop Flores, contended that RFRA was a valid exercise of congressional power to protect religious freedoms. The case ultimately questioned the scope of legislative power in defining and enforcing constitutional rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, held that RFRA exceeds Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, which had upheld RFRA's constitutionality. The majority concluded that while RFRA aimed to protect religious freedoms, its broad scope and justifications lacked the necessary "congruence and proportionality" between the means adopted and the ends sought, thereby violating the separation of powers and the federal-state balance.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several precedents to elucidate the limits of congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment:

  • Employment Division v. Smith (1990): This case upheld the enforcement of a state law criminalizing the use of peyote, even when applied to restrict religious practices. The Court in Boerne v. Flores critically evaluated Smith, emphasizing that RFRA attempted to alter the constitutional balance struck by Smith.
  • SHERBERT v. VERNER (1963): Introduced the compelling interest test, requiring the government to justify substantial burdens on religious exercise with a compelling interest and the least restrictive means.
  • SOUTH CAROLINA v. KATZENBACH (1966): Upheld provisions of the Voting Rights Act, establishing the permissibility of broad remedial legislation under Section 5 enforcement powers.
  • Civil Rights Cases (1883): Differentiated between general and discriminatory legislation, supporting the premise that Congress's enforcement power is remedial, not substantive.

These precedents collectively underscore the Court's stance that Congress's power under Section 5 is limited to remedial or preventive measures directly addressing unconstitutional state actions, not redefining constitutional protections.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions. The majority opinion emphasized that:

  • Remedial vs. Substantive Legislation: RFRA was deemed substantive rather than remedial because it attempted to redefine the Free Exercise Clause's protections, thereby overstepping Congress's remit.
  • Congruence and Proportionality: The Court found a lack of congruence and proportionality between RFRA's expansive measures and the governmental interests purportedly addressed.
  • Historical Context: Referencing the drafting history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court underscored that Congress did not have the authority to alter the substantive meaning of constitutional protections through legislation.
  • Separation of Powers: Upholding the doctrine that constitutional interpretation remains within the Judicial Branch, the Court cautioned against legislative overreach that infringes upon judicial prerogatives.

The Court concluded that RFRA's broad applicability, lack of specific historical backing for its provisions, and absence of proportional measures made it an unconstitutional extension of congressional power.

Impact

The decision in Boerne v. Flores had significant implications for the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches, especially concerning the enforcement of constitutional rights:

  • Limiting Congressional Power: The ruling set a precedent that Congress cannot redefine constitutional rights through legislation, reinforcing the judiciary's role in constitutional interpretation.
  • RFRA's Future: Although RFRA was struck down as applied in Boerne, Congress later enacted a more limited version of RFRA applicable only to federal law, maintaining some level of religious freedom protection.
  • Legislative Restrictions: The decision underscored the necessity for legislative measures to have a direct and necessary connection to addressing unconstitutional state actions, promoting more targeted and historically grounded laws.
  • Judicial Review Affirmed: The case reinforced the principle of judicial review, affirming the courts' authority to invalidate legislation that oversteps constitutional boundaries.

Overall, Boerne v. Flores serves as a critical reference point in discussions about the scope of Congressional authority and the proper mechanisms for enforcing constitutional protections.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Navigating constitutional law often involves intricate doctrines and terminologies. Here are some key concepts from the Boerne v. Flores judgment simplified:

  • Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment: Grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions, which include equal protection and due process clauses. However, this power is meant for remedial actions, not redefining constitutional rights.
  • Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): A law intended to protect individuals' religious freedoms by preventing government from imposing burdens on religious exercise unless justified by a compelling state interest and done in the least restrictive manner.
  • Remedial vs. Substantive Legislation: Remedial legislation aims to address and fix unconstitutional actions or omissions, whereas substantive legislation seeks to define or alter the scope of constitutional rights themselves.
  • Congruence and Proportionality: A legal principle requiring that the means used by the government must closely align with and proportionate to the ends sought, ensuring measures are appropriate and not overly broad.
  • Separation of Powers: A foundational principle dividing government responsibilities among distinct branches to prevent any one branch from exercising the core functions of another, thereby maintaining a balance of power.

Conclusion

Boerne v. Flores is a pivotal case that delineates the boundaries of congressional power in enforcing constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. By ruling that RFRA exceeded these powers, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the judiciary's exclusive role in interpreting constitutional provisions and maintaining the delicate balance of federal and state authorities. This decision underscores the importance of historical context and proportionality in legislative actions aimed at protecting fundamental rights. As a result, Boerne v. Flores continues to influence debates on religious freedom, legislative authority, and the preservation of constitutional integrity in the United States legal landscape.

Case Details

Year: 1997
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

David Hackett SouterJohn Paul StevensStephen Gerald BreyerAntonin ScaliaSandra Day O'Connor

Attorney(S)

Marci A. Hamilton argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Lowell F. Denton and Gordon L. Hollon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, State solicitor of Ohio, argued the cause for the State of Ohio et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Robert C. Maier and Todd Marti, Assistant Attorneys General, and the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Malaetasi M. Togafau of American Samoa, Grant Woods of Arizona, Gale A. Norton of Colorado, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert Butterworth of Florida, Calvin Holloway, Sr., of Guam, Margery S. Bronster of Hawaii, Alan G. Lance of Idaho, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Jeffrey R. Howard of New Hampshire, Michael F. Easley of North Carolina, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., of Pennsylvania, and Julio A. Brady of the Virgin Islands. Douglas Laycock argued the cause for respondent Flores. With him on the brief were Thomas Drought and Patricia J. Schofield. Acting Solicitor General Dellinger argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Waxman, Patricia A. Millett, and Michael Jay Singer. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Commonwealth of Virginia by James S. Gilmore II, Attorney General, David E. Anderson, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Henry Hurd, Deputy Attorney General, and Lee E. Goodman; for the Clarendon Foundation by Ronald D. Maines and Jay S. Bybee; for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., by Bruce N. Cameron; and for the San Antonio Conservation Society et al. by Robert A. Long, Jr., and Ivan K. Fong. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Maryland et al. by J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Jack Schwartz and Steven M. Sullivan, Assistant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Scott Harshbarger of Massachusetts, and Dennis C. Vacco of New York; for members of the Virginia House of Delegates et al. by Mitchell A. Karlan; for Senator Orrin G. Hatch et al. by Carter G. Phillips and Gene C. Schaerr; for Senator Edward M. Kennedy et al. by Clifford M. Sloan; for the American Bar Association by N. Lee Cooper, Stuart H. Newberger, and Joseph N. Onek; for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sekulow, James M. Henderson, Sr., Walter M. Weber, Keith A. Fournier, and John G. Stepanovich; for the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty by Kevin J. Hasson; for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by W. Cole Durham, Jr., James A. Seritella, James C. Geoly, Kevin R. Gustafson, and Von G. Keetch; for the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion by Marc D. Stern, Oliver S. Thomas, J. Brent Walker, Melissa Rogers, Steven T. McFarland, Samuel Rabinove, Richard Foltin, David Zwiebel, Steven R. Shapiro, Steven K. Green, and Jack F. Trope; for the Defenders of Property Rights et al. by Nancie G. Marzulla; for the Minnesota Family Council et al. by Jordan W. Lorence; for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. by Elaine R. Jones, Theodore M. Shaw, and Norman J. Chachkin; for the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom by William Bentley Ball and Richard E. Connell; for the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs by Nathan Lewin, Mathew S. Nosanchuk, and Dennis Rapps; for the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States by John H. Beisner and Elizabeth S. Merritt; for the Prison Fellowship Ministries et al. by Michael Joseph Woodruff, Scott J. Ward, J. Matthew Szymanski, Stephen M. Clarke, and Isaac M. Jaroslawicz; and for the United States Catholic Conference et al. by Michael W. McConnell, Mark E. Chopko, and Jeffrey Hunter Moon. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Texas by Dan Morales, Attorney General, Jorge Vega, First Assistant Attorney General, and Samuel W. Goodhope and Javier Aguilar, Special Assistant Attorneys General; for the Center for the Community Interest by Gilbert R. Serota; for Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc,. et al. by Robert J. Bruno; for the Knights of Columbus by Thomas D. Yannucci and Carl A. Anderson; for the Rutherford Institute by John W. Whitehead, James A. Hayes, Jr., and Brian L. Day; and by Thurston Greene, pro se.

Comments