City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)(p. 218) (Congress’ most recent interpretation as to §5 of the 14th Amendment) Big seperationof powers argument going on….
Issue: Did RFRA violate the Constitution?
Boerne indicated a power struggle b/w the courts and Congress as to who is the appropriate branch to interpret substantive rights under the Constitution.
Sherbert Test: Conflict between law of general applicability and 1st A. Must show:
Holding: 6-3 decision. Had to prove a legitimate state interest using a balancing test. Did the benefit of the historic district outweigh the burden of the church not being able to do what it wanted?
SC’s invalidation reaffirmed the principle that in order to secure a gov’t of limited and enumerated powers, congressional legislation enacted pursuant to §5 must be carefully scrutinized by the courts to ensure that Congress is truly enforcing the provisions of the 14th A., not just redefining the substance under the guise of enforcement. Reaffirmed the remedial theory in Rome but in this case, the court found that it was unsupported – Congress was not able to show that it was really a problem.
Facts: Archbishop of San Antonio filed suit against Boerne when the city denied the Archbishop’s application for a building permit to enlarge a church b/c it was within a historic district, claiming that the permit denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Boerne town council had passed a historic district ordinance saying that they must get approval from town for expansions.
PP: First claim challenged the federal statute in federal district court, which ruled that RFRA unconstitutional. 5th Circuit reversed.
Issue: Did RFRA violate the Constitution?
RFRA established in response to Smith, where Indians were denied unemployment benefits when they lost their jobs as a result of using peyote, which was a religious rite. Smith court used Sherbert as a balancing test. After Smith, Congress unanimously passed RFRA and explicitly said they were passing it to nullify the Smith decision by the SC. Essentially Congress said we’re interpreting the Constitution differently.
Boerne indicated a power struggle b/w the courts and Congress as to who is the appropriate branch to interpret substantive rights under the Constitution.
Sherbert Test: Conflict between law of general applicability and 1st A. Must show:
- Did the state statute substantially burden the state’s free exercise of religion?
- If so, must apply strict scrutiny testburden shifts to state to prove a compelling state interest.
Smith departed from using the Sherbert Test b/c said too high of a standard; rather, it lowered the state’s burden in cases where free exercise of religion was at issue. Rather, the court said needed to have a substantial burden and then they would do a balancing test. If this test had been applied in Boerne, the compelling state interest would be to keep the historic district intact. (Is this compelling enough?)
Societal concerns v. individual rights.
Holding: 6-3 decision. Had to prove a legitimate state interest using a balancing test. Did the benefit of the historic district outweigh the burden of the church not being able to do what it wanted?
SC’s invalidation reaffirmed the principle that in order to secure a gov’t of limited and enumerated powers, congressional legislation enacted pursuant to §5 must be carefully scrutinized by the courts to ensure that Congress is truly enforcing the provisions of the 14th A., not just redefining the substance under the guise of enforcement. Reaffirmed the remedial theory in Rome but in this case, the court found that it was unsupported – Congress was not able to show that it was really a problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment