Strict scrutiny

Definition

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws or government actions that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race or national origin. This standard requires the government to demonstrate that the challenged law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, ensuring that no less restrictive alternatives are available.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Strict scrutiny applies in cases involving fundamental rights like free speech, equal protection under the law, and the right to privacy.
2. The government must provide clear evidence showing that its law or policy serves a compelling state interest to pass strict scrutiny.
3. This level of scrutiny has been employed in landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia, where racial discrimination was challenged.
4. When a law fails strict scrutiny, it is deemed unconstitutional, which has significant implications for civil rights and liberties.
5. Strict scrutiny is distinct from intermediate and rational basis scrutiny, which have less demanding standards for the government to meet.

Review Questions

• How does strict scrutiny differ from other levels of judicial review in evaluating government actions?
  • Strict scrutiny is unique because it requires the government to meet a very high standard when defending laws or actions that affect fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications. Unlike rational basis review, where the burden is on the challenger to prove unconstitutionality, strict scrutiny shifts the burden to the government. It demands evidence of a compelling state interest and ensures the law is narrowly tailored, which is not required in lower levels of scrutiny.
• Discuss how strict scrutiny has been applied in landmark Supreme Court cases related to equal protection.
  • In cases like Brown v. Board of Education, strict scrutiny was applied to laws enforcing racial segregation in public schools. The Court determined that segregation did not serve a compelling state interest and was unconstitutional. Similarly, in Loving v. Virginia, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down under strict scrutiny because they were not narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate state purpose. These cases illustrate how strict scrutiny plays a crucial role in protecting civil rights against discriminatory practices.
• Evaluate the implications of strict scrutiny on modern legislation concerning affirmative action and privacy rights.
  • Strict scrutiny significantly impacts modern legislation by requiring affirmative action programs to clearly demonstrate their necessity for achieving diversity and addressing historical injustices. Programs must be carefully designed to avoid reverse discrimination and must show that no less restrictive alternatives exist. In terms of privacy rights, any governmental intrusion into personal liberties must pass strict scrutiny to ensure it is justified by a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored, reinforcing the importance of protecting individual freedoms against overreach.

Related terms

compelling state interest: A legal justification for laws or policies that infringe upon constitutional rights, which must be proven by the government in strict scrutiny cases.

narrow tailoring: A requirement that laws or policies must be specifically designed to achieve their intended goal without being overly broad or impacting more individuals than necessary.

suspect classifications: Categories of individuals, such as race and ethnicity, that are subject to heightened scrutiny in legal challenges due to historical discrimination.