This case, which started as a result of government officials believing that architecture is more important than religion, ended up in the Supreme Court as the vehicle which was used to judge the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Archdiocese of San Antonio, which needed a larger church in order to accommodate a growing number of congregants, wanted to expand the sanctuary while leaving the facade intact. The City forbade them to do so. The Archbishop used RFRA as a defense, saying that in order for the congregation to be able to exercise their free religious exercise rights, they need a church in which they could all fit.
After the federal district ruled that RFRA was unconstitutional, 877 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Tex. 1995), and the appeals court reversed that decision, 73 F.3d 1352 (5th Cir. 1995), the Supreme Court decided to hear the issue. The Becket Fund has filed a brief with the Supreme Court taking the position that Congress may legislate directly to protect the religious rights of citizens from abrogation by the States. The brief can be found on Westlaw at 1997 WL 86251.
Despite best efforts by religious organizations around the country and civil liberties groups from across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court held that RFRA was unconstitutional on June 25, 1997.