![]() However, footnote 4 in the opinion may have planted the seed for elevated standards of review in other types of cases. US, the Supreme Court upheld an economic regulation under rational basis review. A law may or may not survive this standard of review. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government needs to identify an important (rather than compelling) government interest and prove that the law is substantially related (rather than necessary) to serving that interest. Intermediate scrutiny applies to the quasi-suspect classifications of gender and illegitimacy. This is a challenging standard to meet, and a law usually does not survive strict scrutiny. The law must be narrowly tailored and use the least restrictive means to further that interest. Strict scrutiny requires the government to identify a compelling government interest and prove that the law is necessary to serve that interest. It also applies to certain classifications that impose burdens on fundamental rights, including marriage, procreation, voting, moving between states, and access to courts. ![]() First, strict scrutiny applies to classifications based on race, national origin, religion, and alienage. Standards of Review in Equal Protection CasesĬourts may apply three standards of review in equal protection cases. However, the Supreme Court has indicated that these proxies for racial classifications stand on equally uncertain constitutional ground. As challenges to affirmative action have grown, some public entities have replaced these programs with race-neutral programs that are based on characteristics that tend to correlate with race. This involves giving certain minority groups advantages in processes controlled by the government, such as competitions for government contracts or admission to public universities. Scholars of constitutional law are divided on whether the equal protection doctrine permits affirmative action.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |