Boerne v. Flores and Romer v. Evans?

[David Cruz]

In Boerne, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"RFRA is so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object
that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent,
unconstitutional behavior."

It's not yet clear to me whether this is a statement about the intent
of Congress or about RFRA's effect (or both), but haven't we heard this
before?

In Romer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"[Amendment 2's] sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons
offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but
animus toward the class that it affects[.]"

And again:

"Amendment 2 ... inflicts on [gays and lesbians] immediate, continuing,
and real injuries that outun and belie any legitimate justifications that
may be claimed for it."


-David Cruz, USC Law (Cal.)