TENNESSEE v. LANE Opinion of the Court V The only question that remains is whether Title II is an appropriate response to this history and pattern of unequal treatment. At the outset, we must determine the scope of that inquiry. Title II-unlike RFRA, the Patent Remedy Act, and the other statutes we have reviewed for validity under §5-reaches a wide array of official conduct in an effort to enforce an equally wide array of constitutional guarantees. Petitioner urges us both to examine the broad range of Title II's applications all at once, and to treat that breadth as a mark of the law's invalidity. According to petitioner, the fact that Title II applies not only to public education and voting-booth access but also to seating at state-owned hockey rinks indicates that Title II is not appropriately tailored to serve its objectives. But nothing in our case law requires us to consider Title II, with its wide variety of applications, as an undifferentiated whole.18 Whatever might be said about Title II's other applications, the question presented in this case is not whether Congress can 18 Contrary to THE CHIEF JUSTICE, post, at 551-552, neither Garrettnor Florida Prepaid lends support to the proposition that the Boerne test requires courts in all cases to "measur[e] the full breadth of the statute or relevant provision that Congress enacted against the scope of the constitutional right it purported to enforce." In fact, the decision in Garrett, which severed Title I of the ADA from Title II for purposes of the §5 inquiry, demonstrates that courts need not examine "the full breadth of the statute" all at once. Moreover, Garrett and FloridaPrepaid,like all of our other recent § 5 cases, concerned legislation that narrowly targeted the enforcement of a single constitutional right; for that reason, neither speaks to the issue presented in this case. Nor is THE CHIEF JUSTICE's approach compelled by the nature of the Boerne inquiry. The answer to the question Boerne asks-whether a piece of legislation attempts substantively to redefine a constitutional guarantee-logically focuses on the manner in which the legislation operates to enforce that particular guarantee. It is unclear what, if anything, examining Title II's application to hockey rinks or voting booths can tell us about whether Title II substantively redefines the right of access to the courts.