Strict Scrutiny

Definition

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of government actions or laws that classify individuals based on race, national origin, or fundamental rights. Under this standard, the government must show that its action serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This concept is crucial in understanding how courts assess equality and protection under the law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Strict scrutiny applies only when a law involves a suspect classification or a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech or the right to vote.
2. The burden of proof lies with the government to demonstrate both the compelling interest and the narrow tailoring of the law in question.
3. Most laws that are subjected to strict scrutiny do not survive judicial review, as it is very difficult for the government to meet this high standard.
4. The origins of strict scrutiny can be traced back to cases like 'Korematsu v. United States' and 'Loving v. Virginia,' where racial discrimination was evaluated.
5. In the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, strict scrutiny ensures that any government action affecting protected classes is closely examined to prevent discrimination.

Review Questions

• How does strict scrutiny differ from other levels of judicial review, and why is it significant in assessing laws related to discrimination?
  • Strict scrutiny is different from other levels of judicial review, like intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review, because it is applied only in cases involving suspect classifications or fundamental rights. This level of review is significant because it imposes a heavy burden on the government to prove that its actions are justified by a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. In practice, this means that most laws subjected to strict scrutiny are often struck down for failing to meet these rigorous standards.
• Discuss an example of a Supreme Court case where strict scrutiny was applied and analyze its implications on civil rights.
  • 'Loving v. Virginia' is a landmark case where strict scrutiny was applied to laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case underscored the importance of protecting individual rights against discriminatory laws and set a precedent for future cases involving racial discrimination, reinforcing the need for strict scrutiny in similar contexts.
• Evaluate how strict scrutiny impacts legislative processes when creating laws that may affect minority groups or fundamental rights.
  • Strict scrutiny significantly impacts legislative processes by forcing lawmakers to carefully consider the implications of any laws affecting minority groups or fundamental rights. Before enacting legislation, governments must assess whether their proposed actions can be justified by a compelling state interest and whether those actions are narrowly tailored. This evaluation can lead to more thorough discussions on civil rights and encourage lawmakers to pursue solutions that avoid discrimination, ultimately leading to more equitable policies.

Related terms

Fundamental Rights: Rights that are considered to be essential for the order and liberty of a free society, which receive special protection under strict scrutiny.

Intermediate Scrutiny: A standard of judicial review that is less stringent than strict scrutiny, applied to laws that involve discrimination based on gender or legitimacy.

Compelling State Interest: A fundamental purpose or goal that justifies the government's actions when they infringe upon individual rights, especially in strict scrutiny cases.