Intermediate Scrutiny

Definition

Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review that falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis review. It is applied by courts when evaluating laws or government actions that discriminate based on gender or legitimacy, requiring that the law serve an important governmental objective and be substantially related to achieving that objective. This level of scrutiny balances the need for certain legal protections against the government's interest in maintaining regulatory authority.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intermediate scrutiny was established in the case Craig v. Boren (1976), which addressed gender discrimination in Oklahoma's law regulating the sale of alcohol to men and women.
2. Under intermediate scrutiny, the burden of proof lies with the government to show that its law or action is substantially related to an important government objective.
3. This standard is typically applied in cases involving gender discrimination, but it can also apply to other classifications such as illegitimacy.
4. Laws subjected to intermediate scrutiny are not automatically struck down; instead, courts closely examine the government's justification for the classification.
5. Intermediate scrutiny allows for a more nuanced approach than strict scrutiny, recognizing that some classifications may warrant greater examination without completely invalidating them.

Review Questions

• How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny and rational basis review?
  • Intermediate scrutiny is a middle ground between strict scrutiny and rational basis review. While strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored laws for fundamental rights or suspect classifications, rational basis review only requires a legitimate government interest with a rational connection. Intermediate scrutiny requires an important governmental objective and a substantial relationship between the law and that objective, particularly focusing on cases involving gender discrimination.
• What role did Craig v. Boren play in shaping the application of intermediate scrutiny?
  • Craig v. Boren (1976) was pivotal in establishing intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender discrimination cases. In this case, the Supreme Court found that Oklahoma's law differentiating between men and women regarding alcohol purchase ages was unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny. This ruling clarified that laws must have an important governmental objective and be substantially related to achieving that goal, setting a precedent for future cases involving gender discrimination.
• Analyze the implications of intermediate scrutiny on laws that classify based on gender or legitimacy in terms of judicial outcomes and societal impact.
  • The application of intermediate scrutiny has significant implications for laws that classify individuals based on gender or legitimacy. By requiring that such laws serve an important governmental objective and be substantially related to that goal, courts have been able to invalidate discriminatory practices while still allowing for some regulatory flexibility. This balancing act reflects broader societal values about equality and justice, prompting legislative changes that foster greater inclusivity while ensuring the government retains some regulatory power. Over time, this has led to increased protections against gender-based discrimination, reinforcing the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Related terms

Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, requiring a compelling government interest and that the law is narrowly tailored.

Rational Basis Review: The lowest standard of judicial review where laws are presumed constitutional as long as they have a legitimate government interest and are rationally related to that interest.

Gender Discrimination: Unequal treatment based on a person's gender, which often prompts courts to apply intermediate scrutiny in evaluating the constitutionality of laws.