Boerne v. Flores Flashcards
8 Questions
100 Views

Boerne v. Flores Flashcards

Created by
@EvaluativeQuantum

Questions and Answers

What act did the Archbishop of San Antonio invoke in his lawsuit?

  • Fourteenth Amendment
  • Civil Rights Act
  • 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (correct)
  • First Amendment
  • Boerne's zoning authorities claimed the RFRA was unconstitutional.

    True

    What was the holding of the case?

    6:3 Decision for City of Boerne

    What does the RFRA prohibit regarding religion's free exercise?

    <p>Substantial burden unless a compelling government interest</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The provisions at issue in the case were related to the _____ Amendment.

    <p>14th</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA?

    <p>Yes</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What test did Boerne introduce for determining if Congress exceeded its powers?

    <p>Congruence and proportionality test</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What principle did the Court affirm regarding interpretation of the Constitution?

    <p>Only the Court could interpret the Constitution</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Case Overview

    • Archbishop of San Antonio sued Boerne's local zoning authorities over denial of church expansion permit.
    • Case centered on violation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights.
    • Boerne argued the church's location in a historic preservation district justified the denial under local ordinance.

    Government Action or Statute in Question

    • Key issue: Did Congress exceed its enforcement powers from the Fourteenth Amendment with the RFRA?
    • RFRA's provision subjected local ordinances to federal regulation, raising constitutional concerns.

    Constitutional Provision at Issue

    • Focus on the enforcement provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Case Holding

    • Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Boerne with a 6:3 decision.

    Majority Reasoning

    • RFRA prevents governments from substantially burdening religious exercise unless necessary for a compelling interest.
    • Majority held Congress cannot dictate how states enforce their legislative restrictions on religious freedoms.
    • No evidence suggested Boerne's historic ordinance discriminated against any religion or exhibited animus toward free exercise.
    • Emphasized congruence between means and ends in judicial remedies.
    • RFRA's enactment exceeded congressional power under Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    • Introduced "congruence and proportionality" test for evaluating congressional power limits.
    • Affirmed that only the Court can interpret the Constitution to preserve the separation of powers.
    • Declared the Court has exclusive authority to determine rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
    • First Amendment implications included the undermining of legislative efforts to counteract Employment Division v. Smith.

    Alternative Opinions

    • No details provided on dissenting opinions or alternative perspectives.

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Explore the key concepts and facts surrounding the Boerne v. Flores case, which discusses the intersection of religious freedom and zoning laws. This quiz will help you understand the implications of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the historic preservation regulations at play in this landmark case.

    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Browser