Intermediate Scrutiny

Definition

Intermediate scrutiny is a legal standard used by courts to evaluate laws that involve discrimination based on gender or legitimacy. This level of scrutiny requires the government to prove that the law serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to achieving that objective. It strikes a balance between strict scrutiny, which is applied to fundamental rights, and rational basis review, which is the lowest level of scrutiny.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intermediate scrutiny was established by the Supreme Court in the 1976 case Craig v. Boren, where the court evaluated gender discrimination laws.
2. Under intermediate scrutiny, laws must serve an important government interest, meaning they cannot be arbitrary or unjustified.
3. This standard often applies to cases involving gender discrimination, but it can also extend to other classifications that are not deemed as suspect as race or religion.
4. When a law is evaluated under intermediate scrutiny, courts will closely examine both the means used to achieve the objective and the importance of the objective itself.
5. The application of intermediate scrutiny reflects an acknowledgment of historical discrimination based on gender and aims to ensure fairness in legal treatment.

Review Questions

• How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny and rational basis review in terms of its application in legal cases?
  • Intermediate scrutiny falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis review. While strict scrutiny requires the government to prove a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, intermediate scrutiny only requires that the government show an important interest and that the law is substantially related to achieving that interest. Rational basis review, on the other hand, simply requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, making it easier for the government to justify its actions under this standard.
• Discuss a significant case where intermediate scrutiny was applied and analyze its impact on public health interventions related to gender discrimination.
  • In Craig v. Boren (1976), intermediate scrutiny was applied when evaluating an Oklahoma law that set different legal drinking ages for men and women. The Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not serve an important governmental interest nor was it substantially related to achieving one. This case set a precedent for public health interventions, indicating that laws impacting gender must undergo a more rigorous examination than mere rational basis review, thus influencing policies related to health services and access for different genders.
• Evaluate how intermediate scrutiny could be applied in future public health policies aimed at addressing gender disparities and what challenges might arise.
  • As public health policies evolve to address gender disparities, applying intermediate scrutiny will necessitate demonstrating that these policies serve an important governmental interest, such as improving health outcomes for women. Challenges may include justifying the specific measures implemented and proving their substantial relation to achieving equitable health access. Moreover, policymakers will need to navigate potential pushback against initiatives perceived as preferential treatment, highlighting the necessity of robust data and research supporting these public health efforts.

Related terms

Strict Scrutiny: The highest level of judicial scrutiny applied to laws that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications such as race or religion.

Rational Basis Review: The lowest level of judicial scrutiny applied to laws, where the government only needs to show that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Equal Protection Clause: A provision in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.