Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

City of Boerne v. Flores

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSection 5 of Fourteenth AmendmentRFRAcongruence and proportionalitySection 5Fourteenth AmendmentRFRAFree Exercise Clause

Facts

St. Peter Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas sought to enlarge its building because it could not accommodate all worshippers at some Sunday masses. After the city adopted a historic-preservation ordinance requiring preapproval for construction affecting historic landmarks or buildings in a historic district, city authorities denied the church's building-permit application. The Archbishop sued in federal court and invoked RFRA as a basis for relief from the permit denial. The litigation focused on whether Congress had authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply RFRA to state and local governments.

Issue

Whether RFRA, as applied to the States and their subdivisions, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, the question is whether RFRA enforces the Fourteenth Amendment's protections or instead substantively changes the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.

Rule

Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is to enforce the Amendment's provisions by appropriate remedial or preventive legislation; it does not include power to define or alter the substance of constitutional rights. To be valid Section 5 legislation, there must be congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Religious Equality Restoration Act, applying to every state and local law in the country. The statute requires courts to invalidate any law that substantially burdens religious conduct unless the government proves a compelling interest and least restrictive means, and Congress states that it is restoring what it believes the Free Exercise Clause should mean.

If a city in Ohio defends a neutral fire-safety code against a challenge under the Act, what is the strongest argument that the Act exceeds Congress's Section 5 power?

Explanation. Section 5 authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment through remedial or preventive measures, but not to change the substantive meaning of constitutional rights. A statute that broadly replaces the Court's governing rule with a stricter test operates as a substantive revision rather than enforcement.