Limiting Congress’ Enforcement Power
In City of Boerne v. Flores, Justice Kennedy recognized that “[i]f Congress could define its own powers by altering the Fourteenth Amendment’s meaning … no longer would the Constitution be ‘superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means’”(Kennedy, City of Boerne v. Flores). Thus, Justice Kennedy’s affirmation held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 exceeded Congress’ enforcement powers. This precedent-setting decision further found that Congress attempted to dismiss the Court’s role of defining substantive rights, that the RFRA wasnot congruent and proportional to the violation being remedied, and that it failed to indicate a widespread pattern of religious bigotry.
Congress, utilizing Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted the RFRA to prohibit the government from substantially burdening a person’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, even if the burden resulted from a generally applicable law. Additionally, it sought to further the compelling interest test, as set forth in Sherbet v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder; however, in doing this Congress placed upon a State “the most demanding test known to constitutional law” (Kennedy, City of Boerne v. Flores). In essence, Congress attempted to grant itself the power to define or expand constitutional rights, thereby relinquishing the Court’s power as the sole interpreter of the Constitution. If this action were to be permitted, an anomaly would result that would not withstand judicial scrutiny. While Congress may require States’ adherence to the prohibitions contained in the equal protection and due process clauses, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not give Congress the Court’s power to interpret the law, but simply to remedy it. Congress further violated Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to enact remedial legislation that shows congruence or proportionality, instead attempting a substantive change to constitutional protections. Despite the RFRA’s universal coverage, which applies to all levels of government, its legislative record failed to provide examples of generally applicable laws passed because of religious discrimination. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain that such laws are based on hostility to the burdened religions or that they indicate a history of religious discrimination (Kennedy, City of Boerne v. Flores).
The Court, in upholding this decision, ensures that “when the exercise of religion has been burdened in an incidental way by a law of general application, it does not follow that the persons affected have been burdened any more than other citizens, let alone burdened because of their religious beliefs” (Kennedy, City of Boerne v. Flores). This precedent-setting case found that the RFRA exceeds Congress’ power by failing to be a proper exercise of Congress' enforcement power, since it was not congruent and proportional in its Section 5 powers. This ruling, by explicitly declaring the Court as having the sole power to define the enforcement powers of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ensures the “necessary separation of legislative powers”, thereby granting “to all persons the rights of life, liberty, and property”, as guaranteed through the Constitution (Kennedy, City of Boerne v. Flores).