City of Boerne v. Flores
Citation and Court
521 U.S. 507 (1997) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
The Archbishop of San Antonio sought to expand a church in Boerne, Texas, but the city denied a building permit under a local historic preservation ordinance. The Archbishop sued, invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which Congress had enacted in 1993 to restore the compelling interest test for free exercise claims after Employment Division v. Smith (1990). The city challenged RFRA’s constitutionality.
Issue
Whether Congress exceeded its enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting RFRA, which imposed a compelling interest test on all government action substantially burdening religion.
Holding
Yes. RFRA exceeds Congress’s § 5 enforcement power because it is not congruent and proportional to the constitutional violations it purports to remedy; it is a substantive redefinition of constitutional rights, not a remedial measure.
Rule / Doctrine
Congruence and proportionality test: Congress’s § 5 power is remedial and preventive, not substantive. Legislation enacted under § 5 must be congruent and proportional to the constitutional violations it is designed to remedy. Congress may not use § 5 to redefine or expand constitutional rights beyond what the Court has recognized.
Significance
City of Boerne is the central case on the scope of Congress’s § 5 Fourteenth Amendment power and is essential to understanding limits on congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity (Seminole Tribe, Nevada v. Hibbs). It resolves the tension between judicial and legislative power over constitutional interpretation, firmly establishing the Court’s supremacy in that role.