Statements (60)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:14th_Amendment
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case.
Involved a dispute over a church's expansion. No. 95-507 The case was appealed from the Fifth Circuit. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Set implications for future religious freedom cases.
|
| gptkbp:court |
Appellate court.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
gptkb:legal_case June 25, 1997 |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of the broader debate on religious freedom in the U. S.
|
| gptkbp:historical_debate |
November 4, 1996
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
City of Boerne v. Flores
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Limited the power of Congress to enforce the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the states.
Influenced later cases regarding religious liberties. Limited Congress's power to enforce the RFRA against state laws. |
| gptkbp:is_a_basis_for |
gptkb:Tenth_Amendment
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
521 U. S. 507
521 U. S. 507 (1997) |
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:Archbishop_Patrick_Flores
gptkb:City_of_Boerne |
| gptkbp:judging_criteria |
The judgment was in favor of the City of Boerne.
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
The case was subject to judicial review.
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
The principle of separation of powers. Part of the legal framework surrounding religious freedoms. Debated the extent of religious freedoms. Federalism and religious freedom. The Supreme Court's decision was final. The city argued for local zoning authority. |
| gptkbp:material |
Originated from a local zoning dispute.
|
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:Employment_Division_v._Smith
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Analyzed the balance of powers.
The case is often cited in discussions of religious freedom. The ruling was seen as a victory for local governments. A landmark case in U. S. constitutional law. Affected how states handle religious land use. Struck down the application of RFRA to the states. The Supreme Court ruled against Flores. The decision was a significant legal precedent. The opinion was delivered by the majority. The ruling affected local zoning laws. The ruling limited the scope of RFRA. The ruling was a 6-3 decision. The Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was unconstitutional as applied to the states. Significant for the balance of state and federal authority. The law was found to exceed Congress's enforcement powers. Highlighted the tension between state and federal law. The Court struck down the RFRA as it applied to the states. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set a precedent for state versus federal power.
Influenced future legislation on religious freedom. States have the authority to regulate land use without federal interference. States have sovereign immunity against federal laws. |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy Argued for the protection of religious practices. Emphasized the limits of congressional power. |
| gptkbp:significance |
Significant for the interpretation of the First Amendment.
|