City of Boerne v. Flores

The Court's decision placed distinct limits on the power of Congress to regulate areas traditionally subject to state, not federal, regulation. The decision also limited the power of Congress to pass statutes overturning Supreme Court interpretations of constitutional provisions.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides, in part, that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Prior to 1990, any law which burdened a religious practice was invalid under the First Amendment unless it met the "compelling interest test." Under this test, which is the strictest test that can be applied to a law or governmental action, a law is invalid unless it serves a "compelling" interest of the government and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. However, in 1990, the Supreme Court decided in Employment Division v. Smith that a law not directed specifically towards a religious practice, but generally applicable to all citizens equally need not satisfy the compelling interest test even if it burdens a religious practice. Thus, for example, a law prohibiting the use of drugs is valid even though certain Native American religions use the drug as part of their religious ceremony.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to restore the compelling interest test applied by the Supreme Court prior to Smith. The RFRA provided that if a federal, state, or local law of general applicability "substantially burdened" a person's exercise of religion, then the law was invalid unless it could pass the strict scrutiny test. Essentially, the RFRA overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Smith.

In the early 1990s, St. Peter Catholic Church in the city of Boerne, Texas, sought to expand its church building to accommodate its growing number of parishioners. Boerne is situated approximately 30 miles outside of San Antonio. The church structure, built in 1923, replicated the Spanish mission style of architecture important to the region's heritage. At about the same time, the Boerne City Council passed an ordinance authorizing its Historic Landmark Commission to prepare a plan for preservation of the city's historic landmarks. P. F. Flores, Archbishop of San Antonio applied for a permit to expand the church, which was denied because the city designated the area in which the church was located as a historic district. The archbishop filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing the ordinance violated the RFRA because it burdened the church members' exercise of religion and did not satisfy the compelling interest test. The district court found that the RFRA was unconstitutional and upheld the ordinance. The archbishop then appealed to decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which concluded the RFRA was constitutional. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court through a procedure known as a petition for writ of certiorari.