Statements (64)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
November 4, 1996
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Analyzed the balance of powers.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
Involved a dispute over a church's expansion.
No. 95-507 The case was appealed from the Fifth Circuit. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
The case is often cited in discussions of religious freedom.
The ruling was seen as a victory for local governments. Affected how states handle religious land use. 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 was a 6-3 decision. The law was found to exceed Congress's enforcement powers. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
A landmark case in U. S. constitutional law.
Highlighted the tension between state and federal law. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case.
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Set implications for future religious freedom cases.
|
| gptkbp:court |
Appellate court.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court June 25, 1997 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Argued for the protection of religious practices. |
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of the broader debate on religious freedom in the U. S.
|
| 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:involved_parties |
gptkb:Archbishop_Patrick_Flores
gptkb:City_of_Boerne |
| gptkbp:is_a_basis_for |
gptkb:Tenth_Amendment
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
521 U. S. 507
521 U. S. 507 (1997) |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
The judgment was in favor of the City of Boerne.
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
The case was subject to judicial review.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Federalism and religious freedom.
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Part of the legal framework surrounding religious freedoms.
The Supreme Court's decision was final. |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
Debated the extent of religious freedoms. The city argued for local zoning authority. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Struck down the application of RFRA to the states.
The ruling limited the scope of RFRA. |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
The principle of separation of powers.
|
| gptkbp:material |
Originated from a local zoning dispute.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
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 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_Anthony_Kennedy
Emphasized the limits of congressional power. |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Employment_Division_v._Smith
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Significant for the interpretation of the First Amendment.
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
gptkb:William_Rehnquist gptkb:William_H._Rehnquist gptkb:Harry_Blackmun gptkb:14th_Amendment |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|