🦹intro to law and legal process review

key term - Intermediate scrutiny

Definition

Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws or policies that discriminate based on gender or legitimacy. This level of scrutiny requires the government to show that the challenged law serves an important governmental objective and that the means chosen to achieve that objective are substantially related to it. This approach lies between strict scrutiny, which applies to fundamental rights, and rational basis review, which is applied to most other types of legislation.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

  1. Intermediate scrutiny was established in the 1976 case of Craig v. Boren, which addressed gender discrimination in alcohol purchasing age laws.
  2. Laws subjected to intermediate scrutiny must serve an important governmental interest, which is a higher threshold than the rational basis review but lower than strict scrutiny.
  3. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government does not need to prove that the law is the least restrictive means available, just that it is substantially related to an important objective.
  4. Intermediate scrutiny is primarily applied in cases involving gender discrimination and illegitimacy but does not extend to all classifications.
  5. Judicial decisions applying intermediate scrutiny often consider societal norms and historical context related to the discrimination being challenged.

Review Questions

  • How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny and rational basis review in terms of judicial evaluation?
    • Intermediate scrutiny is a middle level of judicial review that requires the government to demonstrate an important governmental objective and a substantial relationship between the law and that objective. In contrast, strict scrutiny demands a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when fundamental rights are involved, while rational basis review only requires a legitimate government interest and a rational connection. This distinction affects how courts assess various types of discrimination, particularly focusing on gender.
  • Discuss a landmark case that utilized intermediate scrutiny and its impact on legal standards for gender discrimination.
    • The landmark case Craig v. Boren (1976) applied intermediate scrutiny when evaluating an Oklahoma law that set different drinking ages for men and women. The Supreme Court found that the law was unconstitutional because it did not serve an important governmental interest related to the differences in drinking ages. This case established the use of intermediate scrutiny for gender-based discrimination and set a precedent for future cases challenging laws that treat individuals differently based on sex.
  • Evaluate how the application of intermediate scrutiny reflects societal attitudes toward gender discrimination and influences legislative actions.
    • The application of intermediate scrutiny indicates a recognition by the courts that gender discrimination requires more than mere justification; it necessitates significant justification due to evolving societal norms about equality. This reflective standard encourages legislators to critically examine laws that differentiate based on gender and prompts them to justify such distinctions with substantial evidence of necessity. As societal attitudes continue to shift toward greater equality, the use of intermediate scrutiny may lead lawmakers to avoid enacting discriminatory laws that could be struck down by courts.