Question

Why did the Supreme Court rule against Archbishop Flores?

A) The RFRA violated the Constitution.
B) Flores had violated the RFRA passed by Congress.
C) The RFRA had interfered with Flores’s religious freedom.
D) Boerne had violated Flores’s religious rights.

Answer 1

Answer: A) The RFRA violated the Constitution.

The RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it served as the basis of dispute in the case City of Boerne v. Flores. The Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, Patrick Flores, brought suit against local authorities for denying him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas. The court ultimately ruled against him, by claiming that the RFRA as it applies to the states was an unconstitutional use of Congress's enforcement powers.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court ruled against Archbishop Flores because the RFRA violated the Constitution.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) violated the Constitution.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) served as the basis of dispute in the case City of Boerne v. Flores.

The Catholic Archbishop "Patrick Flores" brought suit against local authorities for denying him a permit to expand his church in Boerne, Texas.

The Supreme court ruled against him on the claim that, RFRA as it applies to the states, was an unconstitutional use of Congress's enforcement powers.

Therefore, the Option A is correct.

Read more about RFRA

brainly.com/question/9060941