Levels of Judicial Scrutiny

Judicial scrutiny levels help courts decide how closely to examine laws and government actions. They range from rational basis review, which is lenient, to strict scrutiny, which is very strict. Understanding these levels is key in Constitutional Law.

1. Rational Basis Review

   • The lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts when evaluating laws or government actions.
   • The government must show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
   • The burden of proof is on the challenger to demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to any legitimate interest.
   • Typically applied in cases involving economic regulations and social welfare issues.
   • Courts generally defer to the legislature's judgment, leading to a high rate of success for government actions.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny

   • A middle level of scrutiny used primarily for cases involving gender discrimination and certain types of content-based speech.
   • The government must demonstrate that the law is substantially related to an important government interest.
   • The burden of proof shifts to the government to justify the law's validity.
   • Courts engage in a more detailed examination of the law's purpose and effects compared to rational basis review.
   • Often results in a more balanced approach, weighing both governmental interests and individual rights.

3. Strict Scrutiny

   • The highest level of scrutiny applied to laws that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications (e.g., race, national origin).
   • The government must prove that the law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
   • The burden of proof is on the government, making it difficult for laws to pass this standard.
   • Courts closely examine the law's means and ends, often requiring the least restrictive alternative.
   • Strict scrutiny is rarely satisfied, leading to a high rate of invalidation of laws under this standard.

4. Rational Basis with Bite

   • A more rigorous application of rational basis review, used in cases where the law appears to discriminate against a particular group.
   • Courts may apply a heightened level of scrutiny while still nominally using rational basis review.
   • The government must provide a more substantial justification for the law than in traditional rational basis cases.
   • Often applied in cases involving LGBTQ+ rights and other marginalized groups.
   • Reflects a growing recognition of the need for greater protection against discrimination while still not reaching the level of strict scrutiny.

5. Undue Burden Test

   • A standard used primarily in cases involving abortion rights, established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
   • A law is unconstitutional if it places an undue burden on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability.
   • The government must show that the law serves a legitimate state interest without imposing significant obstacles.
   • Courts evaluate the law's effects on women's access to abortion services rather than just its purpose.
   • This test balances state interests in regulating abortions with the constitutional rights of women, leading to nuanced judicial analysis.