concluding that Katzenbach confronted a “widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights resulting from this country’s history of racial discrimination”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that Katzenbach confronted a “widespread and persisting deprivation of constitutional rights resulting from this country’s history of racial discrimination”
- holding that the Religious Free- _________________________________________________________________ DPPA. 7 Although the Supreme Court's ground breaking decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), was decided in June of 1997, the United States did not cite the case in its opening brief, which was filed in January of 1998. 18 dom Restoration Act is "a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional prerogatives," and that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment in enacting the statute
- stating that, with regard to Congress’ enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment: “ ‘Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain ... if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power’ ” (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 345-46, 25 L.Ed. 676 (1879))
- finding that the "least restrictive means” prong of RFRA was coextensive with the Supreme Court’s decision in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), in which the "limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. — not on the Supreme Court's list
521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997) (“The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action . . . .”), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411, 424
Supreme Court of the United StatesJun 30, 20145 citing opinionsby statuteother groundsunconfirmed confidenceRead itQuestioned by United States v. Walter v. Grant, Jr., 117 F.3d 788 (1997)
Flores, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), striking down RFRA as it applies to state and local governments, arguably casts some doubt on the continued viability of that legislation in the federal context.
Distinguished
Distinguished by In re Border Infrastructure Envtl. Litig., 284 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (2018)
Defendants argue that Shelby and City of Boerne are distinguishable and do not support California's argument.
The opinion
. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
*537 If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligión, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 52-55 (1985).