Strict Scrutiny

Definition

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws or government actions that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race or religion. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that its action serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with the least restrictive means. This level of scrutiny connects deeply with various constitutional principles, particularly in assessing equal protection and due process claims.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Strict scrutiny is often applied in cases involving racial discrimination, ensuring that laws affecting racial groups receive the highest level of scrutiny by the courts.
2. For a law to pass strict scrutiny, the government must prove both a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without using broader means.
3. This standard can also apply in cases involving fundamental rights, like free speech or voting, where the government must justify any restrictions placed on these rights.
4. The strict scrutiny standard originated from Supreme Court decisions in cases like 'Korematsu v. United States' and 'Loving v. Virginia,' which shaped its application in civil rights matters.
5. If a law fails the strict scrutiny test, it is deemed unconstitutional and cannot be enforced by the government.

Review Questions

• How does strict scrutiny differ from other standards of review, such as rational basis or intermediate scrutiny?
  • Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. In contrast, rational basis review requires only that a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, while intermediate scrutiny demands that laws serve an important government interest and are substantially related to achieving that interest. This distinction affects how courts analyze cases involving fundamental rights and discrimination.
• What role does strict scrutiny play in equal protection cases involving racial discrimination?
  • In equal protection cases concerning racial discrimination, strict scrutiny is applied to ensure that any laws or policies treating individuals differently based on race undergo thorough judicial examination. The government must prove that it has a compelling reason for such differentiation and that there are no less restrictive alternatives available. This high bar helps safeguard against unjust discrimination and promotes racial equality under the law.
• Evaluate the implications of strict scrutiny for legislation aimed at protecting national security versus individual rights.
  • The application of strict scrutiny in cases involving national security can create tension between governmental interests and individual rights. While governments may argue for stricter laws in the name of security, they must still meet the demanding criteria of proving a compelling interest and narrowly tailoring their laws. This evaluation not only tests the legitimacy of security measures but also emphasizes the importance of protecting civil liberties even in challenging circumstances, ensuring a balance between societal safety and individual freedoms.

Related terms

Fundamental Rights:

Rights that are considered essential to the order of liberty and are protected from government interference, such as the right to free speech or the right to privacy.

Compelling Interest: A legal standard that requires the government to prove that a law or policy serves an urgent and necessary purpose, justifying any infringement on individual rights.

Narrowly Tailored: A requirement that laws or government actions must be specifically designed to achieve their intended objective without unnecessarily restricting broader rights.