Which case held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be applied to state governments due to the scope of congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

• A. Schenck v. United States (1919)
• B. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
• C. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
• D. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Answer: (D)

Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment under Section 5 is limited to remedying violations of rights, not expanding or redefining those rights for the states. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to state and local governments would go beyond what Section 5 authorizes. RFRA imposes a uniform, heightened standard of scrutiny for religious burdens on all state actions, which the Court said is not a remedial measure tailored to past violations and thus cannot be applied to the states. The key idea is that Congress may adopt remedies that are congruent and proportional to constitutional violations, not create broad new federal mandates for states. The other cases involve different issues—wartime restrictions on speech, prior restraint, and incorporation of the Second Amendment—and do not address the scope of Congress’s enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment in the same way.