American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Practice Exam

What was the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

1. It fully upheld the Act as constitutional

2. It found the Act an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers

3. The Act was deemed necessary for religious freedoms

4. Local governments have complete authority over historical sites

The correct answer is: It found the Act an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers

The ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores determined that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers. The Supreme Court held that while Congress has the authority to enforce constitutional rights under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it does not have the power to define those rights or extend protections beyond what the Court has recognized. In this case, the city of Boerne had denied a church’s request to expand its facility in a historic preservation district. The church argued that this violated their rights under the RFRA, which aimed to protect religious free exercise from government infringement. However, the Court found that the RFRA did not appropriately fit within the bounds of Congress's enforcement powers and was therefore unconstitutional as it attempted to broaden the definition of religious freedom without a proper constitutional basis. This ruling is significant because it established a limitation on Congress’s ability to legislate protections regarding religious freedoms, specifically when it comes to state and local governments' zoning and land use decisions.