Original sentence: Flores, the Court again took a narrow view of the Congressional power of enforcement, striking down a provision of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that sought to forbid the states from placing burdens on religious practice in the absence of a compelling state interest in doing so.In Morrison, the Court overturned provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that criminalized gender-based violence.Morrison, decided in 2000.Relying on The Civil Rights Cases, Boerne and other precedents, the Court held that Congress did not have power to forbid discrimination against women in the absence of a connection to state action or interstate commerce.Smith decision.Some observers have suggested that the Supreme Court saw RFRA as a threat to the Court's institutional power and an incursion on its role as final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, because that statute was aimed specifically at overturning the Employment Division v.The Supreme Court also read Congress's enforcement powers narrowly in United States v
Edited sentence: Flores, the Court again took a narrow view of the Congressional power of enforcement, striking down a provision of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that sought to forbid the states from placing unreasonable burdens on religious practice.Morrison in 2000, the Court overturned provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that criminalized gender-based violence.Relying on The Civil Rights Cases and other precedents, the Court held that Congress did not have power to forbid discrimination against women in the absence of a connection to state action or interstate commerce.Similarly, in United States v.Some observers have suggested that the Supreme Court saw RFRA as a threat to the Court's institutional power and an incursion on its role as final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, because that statute was aimed specifically at overturning the Smith decision