521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Under the guidance of Archbishop Flores, the congregation of St. Peter Catholic Church wished to expand the physical structure of their church to house the 40 to 60 extra parishioners who could not be accommodated at Sunday services. When the Archbishop applied for a building permit for the construction on St. Peters the permit was denied based on the cities Historic Landmark Commission’s preservation plan for buildings in the historic district, including the church. The Archbishop sued arguing that, among other claims, the denial of the permit was an infringement of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which restricted the government from considerably burdening an individual’s exercise of religion. The RFRA was enacted as a reply to the Courts decision in Employment Div. V. Smith ( 494 US 872 ) to permit laws of general applicability to be enforced against religious practices, a diversion from the traditional method of only allowing enforcement of these laws in the event of a compelling government interest. The court case soon became an issue of whether the RFRA was unconstitutional under clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a
6-3 decision the Court ruled that the passage of the RFRA was contrary to
fundamental principles essential for the preservation of the separation of
powers and the federal-state balance. Justices Kennedy, Rehnquist,
Stevens, Thomas, Ginsberg and Scalia were in the majority, with Justices
O’Connor, Breyer and Souter dissenting.
Congress exceeded its authority by enacting the RFRA of 1993. The RFRA was established to directly countermand a Supreme Court decision by reinstating the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner. 374 us 398 To allow the law to stand would contradict vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance. Congress does not have the ability to define its own constitutional powers.
While the RFRA is clearly a reaction to the earlier Court decision, the earlier decision itself was wrong and ought to be reexamined. Congress is granted wider powers under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment than the Court has decided. The Religion Clauses of the Constitution represent a profound commitment to religious liberty. Our Nation’s Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, not of a secular society in which religious expression is tolerated only when it does not conflict with a generally applicable law.
This Court decision limited the powers of Congress in regard to clause 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment while at the same time reaffirmed judicial authority to review the constitutionality of laws. 
Last modified [insert date here]
|