Intermediate scrutiny

Definition

Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws or government actions that affect constitutional rights, particularly those involving discrimination based on gender or legitimacy. This level of scrutiny requires the government to demonstrate that the law serves an important governmental objective and that the means chosen are substantially related to achieving that objective. It sits between strict scrutiny and rational basis review, providing a balance in the evaluation of governmental interests against individual rights.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intermediate scrutiny was established in the case of Craig v. Boren (1976), where the Supreme Court ruled that gender-based classifications must serve important governmental objectives.
2. This level of scrutiny is often applied in cases involving gender discrimination and discrimination based on legitimacy, reflecting a middle ground between strict and rational basis standards.
3. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government has the burden to prove that the law is substantially related to achieving an important interest, making it more demanding than rational basis but less so than strict scrutiny.
4. Intermediate scrutiny allows for a more flexible approach, permitting some government regulation as long as there is a significant justification for it.
5. While it is primarily applied in gender discrimination cases, intermediate scrutiny can also be relevant in assessing other classifications that do not reach the level of strict scrutiny.

Review Questions

• How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny and rational basis review?
  • Intermediate scrutiny falls in between strict scrutiny and rational basis review in terms of judicial standards. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored means when fundamental rights are at stake, while rational basis review only needs a legitimate government interest for laws affecting non-fundamental rights. Intermediate scrutiny, on the other hand, mandates an important governmental objective with means that are substantially related to that objective, which makes it a more rigorous requirement than rational basis but less demanding than strict scrutiny.
• What role did the case Craig v. Boren play in establishing the standard of intermediate scrutiny?
  • The case of Craig v. Boren was pivotal in establishing intermediate scrutiny as a legal standard. In this 1976 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that gender-based classifications could not be justified under rational basis review and required that any such laws serve important governmental objectives. This ruling set the precedent for intermediate scrutiny, leading to its application in subsequent cases involving gender discrimination, thereby providing a more robust protection against arbitrary distinctions based on gender.
• Evaluate the implications of using intermediate scrutiny in evaluating laws related to gender discrimination.
  • Using intermediate scrutiny has significant implications for evaluating laws regarding gender discrimination because it establishes a higher standard of justification for such laws. By requiring that laws serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to achieving those goals, courts can better protect against unjustified discrimination. This standard acknowledges the importance of addressing historical inequalities while still allowing governments some flexibility in creating laws, ensuring that regulations do not reinforce stereotypes or disadvantage individuals based on their gender.

Related terms

Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard of judicial review used when a law or government action infringes on fundamental rights or involves suspect classifications, requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored means.

Rational Basis Review: The lowest standard of judicial review applied to laws or actions that do not affect fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, requiring only a legitimate governmental interest.

Substantial Relationship Test: A requirement under intermediate scrutiny that mandates a clear connection between the government's objectives and the means used to achieve them, ensuring that the law is appropriately tailored to its goals.