Acclaimed by researchers, students, and general readers, this informative, lively, and easy-to-use volume fills the public need for information about key recent and historical cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now significantly updated, this new edition includes all the new major cases-over twenty five in total-handed down by the Court since the first edition was published in 2000. The new entries include many high-profile cases that have stirred public controversy, including: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), granting the right to exclude homosexuals from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts; Bush v. Gore (2000), ceasing ballot recounts in the 2000 presidential election; PGA Tour v. Martin (2001), obliging the PGA to accommodate a disabled golfer; Lawrence v. Texas (2003), stating that a law criminalizing same-sex sodomy violates due process; Gratz/Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), stating that an affirmative action program to achieve diversity in universities may or may not violate the equal protection clause, depending on how it's implemented. In each of the over 100 cases summarized, author Tony Mauro succinctly describes the decision, provides background and facts of the case, the vote and highlights of the decision with verbatim excerpts, and, in conclusion, discusses the long-term impact of the decision on United States citizens and U.S. society. Topic search aids let readers easily trace the evolution and impact of rulings in particular issue areas. Added features also enhance the volume, including many new portraits, political cartoons, and drawings, a comprehensive bibliography and an easy-to-access case/subject index. A perfect starting point for research on Supreme Court decisions, this newly updated volume is an essential addition to every public, high school, and college library.
City of Boerne v. Flores
Decided June 25, 1997
521 U.S. 507
Congress has the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and other parts of the Constitution, but only the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret what the Constitution means. For that reason, the Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which dictated the standard by which government actions that restrict religious practices should be judged by courts. The Court also said that even though the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to pass “remedial” laws that enforce civil rights at the state level, RFRA went too far in telling states what to do.
Throughout history the Supreme Court has often been asked to referee disputes in which government has applied seemingly neutral ...