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 show that its actions serve an important governmental objective and are substantially related to achieving that objective, providing a balance between the strict scrutiny and rational basis tests.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intermediate scrutiny is primarily applied in cases involving gender discrimination and laws affecting quasi-suspect classifications.
2. Under intermediate scrutiny, the burden of proof lies with the government to demonstrate that its regulation is substantially related to an important government interest.
3. This standard was established in the landmark case of Craig v. Boren (1976), which addressed gender-based distinctions in alcohol purchasing laws.
4. Courts using intermediate scrutiny typically evaluate the actual impact of laws on individuals rather than just their intent, making it a more nuanced approach.
5. Laws that fail intermediate scrutiny are often struck down as unconstitutional, highlighting the importance of this standard in protecting individual rights.

Review Questions

• How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny and rational basis review in terms of the burden of proof and types of classifications?
  • Intermediate scrutiny falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis review. While strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that a law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, intermediate scrutiny only demands that the law serve an important governmental objective and be substantially related to achieving it. In contrast, rational basis review imposes the lowest burden on the government, where it only needs to show a reasonable connection to a legitimate interest. This layered approach reflects varying levels of protection for different classifications under constitutional law.
• What are some significant cases where intermediate scrutiny has been applied, and what outcomes did these cases produce?
  • Significant cases applying intermediate scrutiny include Craig v. Boren (1976), which ruled that gender-based distinctions must meet the intermediate standard and invalidated an Oklahoma law restricting beer sales based on gender. Another key case is United States v. Virginia (1996), which found that the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy failed intermediate scrutiny because it did not serve an important government interest. These outcomes reflect how intermediate scrutiny has been pivotal in addressing gender discrimination and promoting equality under the law.
• Evaluate how intermediate scrutiny serves as a balancing test in legal decisions regarding discrimination and its implications for future cases.
  • Intermediate scrutiny serves as a crucial balancing test in legal decisions by ensuring that government actions affecting gender or legitimacy discrimination are subject to thorough examination without imposing the highest burden found in strict scrutiny. This allows for necessary regulations that address important societal goals while still protecting individual rights against arbitrary classifications. The implications for future cases suggest that courts may continue to refine this standard, potentially influencing how gender-based laws are created and challenged, fostering an environment where equality under the law can evolve alongside changing societal values.

Related terms

strict scrutiny: The highest level of scrutiny applied by courts, requiring the government to prove that a law serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

rational basis review: The lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts, where the government only needs to show that a law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

equal protection clause: A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits states from denying any person equal protection under the law, often invoked in discrimination cases.