# City of Boerne v. Flores

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 1997 · 521 U.S. 507

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433510

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 1997
- **Citations:** 521 U.S. 507; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 140; 97 Daily Journal DAR 7973; 1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1329; 65 U.S.L.W. 4612; 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,785; 74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 62; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4904; 117 S. Ct. 2157; 138 L. Ed. 2d 624; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4035
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, Stevens, Thomas, Ginsburg, Scalia, Iii-A-, O'Connor, Breyer, Souter
- **Cited by:** 1,711 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. — not on the Supreme Court's list.
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433510

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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 n…
- 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…

## Opinion text

. 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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433510. Public record. Not legal advice.