ubeazy

City of Boerne v. Flores

Facts

The Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio sought to expand a church located in the City of Boerne, Texas. The church needed additional space to accommodate a growing congregation. However, the city denied the building permit because the church was located in a designated historic district and the proposed expansion violated local historic preservation ordinances.

The Archbishop argued that the city’s denial substantially burdened the church’s ability to practice religion. He claimed the denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal statute enacted by Congress in 1993 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

RFRA required that when the government substantially burdens religious exercise, it must satisfy strict scrutiny: the government must show that its action advances a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. RFRA applied broadly to federal, state, and local government actions.

The City of Boerne challenged RFRA’s applicability to state and local governments. The city argued that Congress lacked authority to impose RFRA’s strict scrutiny standard on states because the Supreme Court, not Congress, determines constitutional meaning, and because Congress’s enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited.

The case required the Supreme Court to determine whether Congress had constitutional authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact RFRA and apply it to the states.

Issues

Does Congress have power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply RFRA to the states by imposing strict scrutiny on state and local laws that burden religious exercise?

Rule

Under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact legislation to enforce the Amendment’s substantive guarantees against the states. However, Congress may not redefine the scope of constitutional rights or change the meaning of constitutional protections announced by the Supreme Court.

Section 5 enforcement legislation must show “congruence and proportionality” between (1) the constitutional violations Congress seeks to remedy or prevent and (2) the legislative means adopted.

Application

The Court recognized that Congress has meaningful power under Section 5 to enforce constitutional rights. Congress may enact remedial or preventive legislation targeting state conduct that violates constitutional protections. For example, Congress can address patterns of discrimination and adopt measures designed to deter constitutional violations.

But the Court emphasized that Section 5 is not a license for Congress to rewrite constitutional doctrine. The Constitution’s meaning is ultimately interpreted by the judiciary. Congress cannot use Section 5 to supersede Supreme Court decisions by legislating a broader constitutional standard than the Court itself recognizes.

RFRA attempted to do precisely that. After Employment Division v. Smith, neutral and generally applicable laws do not ordinarily violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religion. RFRA reinstated strict scrutiny across the board, effectively replacing Smith’s constitutional rule with a more protective standard.

The Court treated this as a substantive change, not enforcement. RFRA was not limited to identified constitutional violations, nor was it targeted at any pattern of unconstitutional state action. Instead, it applied broadly to essentially all state and local laws that burden religious exercise, regardless of whether they were discriminatory or unconstitutional under existing doctrine.

Using the “congruence and proportionality” framework, the Court found RFRA defective on both dimensions:

  • Lack of congruence: RFRA’s sweep was not tied to specific proven patterns of unconstitutional state violations of free exercise rights.

  • Lack of proportionality: The remedy was extreme and universal, imposing strict scrutiny on a huge range of ordinary state laws without tailoring.

Because RFRA imposed a broad new constitutional standard rather than remedying documented constitutional violations, it exceeded Congress’s Section 5 enforcement authority.

In future cases, Boerne becomes the controlling standard for Section 5: Congress can enforce rights but cannot define them, and enforcement legislation must be appropriately tailored—congruent and proportional—to constitutional violations.

Holding

The Court held that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states because it exceeded Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress may not use Section 5 to redefine constitutional rights or impose broad substantive standards that are not congruent and proportional to proven constitutional violations.

Court

The case was decided by the United States Supreme Court. It arose from a dispute between a city’s historic preservation ordinance and a church expansion. The Court struck down RFRA as applied to state and local governments, establishing a major limitation on Congress’s Section 5 enforcement power.

Exam Notes

  1. Leading case limiting Congress’s Section 5 enforcement power

  2. Congress may enforce rights but may not redefine constitutional meaning

  3. Creates the “congruence and proportionality” test

  4. RFRA held unconstitutional as applied to states

  5. Strong separation of powers theme: judiciary interprets Constitution

  6. Enforcement legislation must be targeted to preventing/remedying actual constitutional violations

  7. Often paired with:

    • Morrison (state action limits + Section 5)

    • Katzenbach v. Morgan (broader view of Section 5)

  8. Key takeaway: broad, untailored laws are vulnerable under Boerne

  9. High-frequency Con Law exam topic

Shopping Cart