Which statement explains why Justice Kennedy found the RFRA unconstitutional

It violated separation of powers and intruded on states' rights.

Explanation:

The Supreme Court of the United States of America concluded, in 1997 (City of Boerne versus Flores) that the RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) wasn't to be implemented to the States. on a Federal level.

RFRA was seen disproportionate in its effects compared to its objective. Justice Kennedy wrote:

Congress' power under § 5, however, extends only to "enforc[ing]" the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has described this power as "remedial." The design of the Amendment and the text of § 5 are inconsistent with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]."

The answer to your question is,

It violated separation of powers and intruded on states' rights.

-Mabel <3