Maryland
How City of Boerne v. Flores applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
Maryland's approach reflects a commitment to protecting religious freedoms but aligns with the federal standard set forth in City of Boerne v. Flores, which limits Congress's ability to determine the scope of state actions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Maryland Constitution also incorporates a Freedom of Religion clause, reinforcing these principles.
In Maryland, the state government must avoid imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise unless there is a compelling governmental interest supported by the least restrictive means.
The court held that a zoning decision that substantially burdened a religious group’s operations was subject to strict scrutiny under Maryland's state constitution.
The court ruled that application of zoning laws against a religious use, without demonstrating a compelling interest, violated the religious exercise rights protected under Maryland law.
The court determined that public employees could not be uniformly barred from religious expression during their duties, emphasizing the balance between state interests and individual religious rights.
Maryland courts and the federal jurisprudence diverge primarily in the interpretation of individual rights under state law. While City of Boerne restricts Congress’s ability to enforce RFRA against the states, Maryland's constitutional interpretation often provides a broader scope of protection for religious freedoms than federal law.
Maryland bar exam candidates should be familiar with the nuances of religious freedom protections at both federal and state levels, especially the implications of City of Boerne v. Flores on state legislation.