City of Boerne v. Flores

In the 1990 case Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, Native Americans challenged an Oregon law criminalizing peyote use, arguing that it impinged on their religious practices and therefore violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court deemed the law constitutional because it was a law of general applicability not specifically targeting religious practices. Unhappy with the Court’s ruling, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibited federal and state governments from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion, even if the burden resulted from a law of general applicability. Under RFRA, a person’s free exercise of religion could be substantially burdened only if the government showed that its actions were necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and were the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Archbishop Flores (plaintiff) sought a building permit from the City of Boerne (Boerne) (defendant) to expand a church building. Boerne denied the permit under a city ordinance that prevented expansions of structures designated as historic landmarks. The church was deemed a historic landmark. Flores sued Boerne, arguing that Boerne’s denial of the permit violated RFRA. Boerne countered that RFRA was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’s enforcement power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that RFRA was unconstitutional, but the court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.