Answer:
compare Boerne v. Flores to Marbury v. Madison.
Step-by-step explanation:
A Catholic archbishop named Patrick Flores applied for a building permit to enlarge his church. The City of Boerne, Texas, denied Flores’s permit. It argued that the building should be preserved because it was a historic landmark, and city laws made it illegal to expand a historic building.
Archbishop Flores sued the city. He claimed Boerne had violated a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This act of Congress prohibited local governments from “substantially burdening” a person’s freedom of religion. Flores argued that the city was substantially burdening his church's freedoms by preventing it from changing its building.
The Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to study the RFRA. After reviewing the case, the Court ruled the RFRA was unconstitutional. It declared that Congress did have the power to enforce freedom of religion and protect citizens’ rights. However, by passing the RFRA, Congress had overstepped its bounds in three important ways.
First, Congress had attempted to change the meaning of the First Amendment by adding a new requirement for how it should be enforced. In his opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued: “Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is.” By adding the idea of “substantially burdening” freedom of religion, Congress had added a new interpretation for the First Amendment. According to the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of the Constitution—it can only enforce it.
Second, Congress had created a law that would obstruct states’ rights. Justice Kennedy explained: “RFRA is a considerable congressional intrusion into the States’ traditional prerogatives and general authority to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens.” Congress had taken away states’ ability to interpret the First Amendment for themselves.
Third, Congress had created a law that was not proportional to the problem it was fixing. The Court argued that a widespread solution was only needed if a widespread problem could be demonstrated. Kennedy explained: “There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.” Because the RFRA was a law that could affect so many laws and court decisions, it was out of proportion to the smaller problem that it addressed.
Because the RFRA expanded the powers of Congress and limited the powers of states, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. The City of Boerne won the case and the RFRA was struck down.