🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Levels of Scrutiny
CONLAW#061
Legal Definition
Government action is upheld if it is necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. The burden is on the government, and the court will look only to the government's actual purpose. The means must be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive alternative.
Plain English Explanation
Strict scrutiny is the most demanding test courts use to review laws challenged on constitutional grounds. It applies when fundamental rights or <suspect classes> are affected.
To survive strict scrutiny, the law must serve a compelling - not just important - government interest. Speculation is not enough; the need must be extremely pressing.
The law also must be narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose. It cannot be over- or under-inclusive at all. This ensures no rights are infringed unnecessarily.
The government bears the burden to show the law is optimally designed. Courts look only at the actual purpose, not any conceivable rationale.
Strict scrutiny sets an extremely high bar to protect core constitutional rights. Very few laws subject to it survive. It ensures that government infringement of fundamental freedoms only occurs when absolutely necessary for an essential interest.
In other words, under the strict scrutiny, the government can only win if it proves its action is absolutely needed for a very important reason. It's the government's job to show this. They need to make sure their solution fits just right—like the only key that can unlock a door—and it can't go further than necessary.
To survive strict scrutiny, the law must serve a compelling - not just important - government interest. Speculation is not enough; the need must be extremely pressing.
The law also must be narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means to achieve its purpose. It cannot be over- or under-inclusive at all. This ensures no rights are infringed unnecessarily.
The government bears the burden to show the law is optimally designed. Courts look only at the actual purpose, not any conceivable rationale.
Strict scrutiny sets an extremely high bar to protect core constitutional rights. Very few laws subject to it survive. It ensures that government infringement of fundamental freedoms only occurs when absolutely necessary for an essential interest.
In other words, under the strict scrutiny, the government can only win if it proves its action is absolutely needed for a very important reason. It's the government's job to show this. They need to make sure their solution fits just right—like the only key that can unlock a door—and it can't go further than necessary.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Hypofornia passes a law requiring all citizens to share their online passwords with the government, claiming it's necessary for national security. Sam, concerned about privacy, challenges this program as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Result: The court applies strict scrutiny because the program touches on the fundamental right to privacy. Since the government's action seems overly broad and invasive, failing to be the least restrictive means to achieve its stated goal, the court finds the program unconstitutional. A less restrictive approach could involve the government conducting targeted surveillance based on specific, court-approved warrants rather than a blanket collection of passwords.
Hypo 2: In New Hypoland, the government passes a law that only people from certain countries can enter specific professions, arguing it's to protect national security. Bob, who is from one of the banned countries, sues, claiming the law discriminates based on nationality, a suspect class, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Result: The court uses strict scrutiny because the law discriminates based on nationality. Finding the law unnecessarily excludes qualified candidates without being narrowly tailored to its security goal, the court rules it unconstitutional. A less restrictive way to address security concerns could involve enhanced background checks and security clearances for all applicants, regardless of nationality.
Hypo 3: Hypofornia passes a law stating that only graduates from its state university can run for public office, aiming to ensure candidates understand local issues. Bob, a graduate from a neighboring state's university, challenges the law, arguing it infringes on the fundamental right to participate in the political process, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Result: Under strict scrutiny, the court examines the law because it infringes on the fundamental democratic right to run for office. Finding the law unnecessarily excludes qualified candidates and isn't the least restrictive way to ensure candidates understand local issues, the court strikes it down. A less restrictive approach could involve offering a comprehensive test on local issues to all candidates, regardless of where they graduated from.
Hypo 4: In response to a severe and highly contagious disease outbreak, Hypofornia enacts a law requiring mandatory vaccinations for all its citizens, with exceptions only for medical issues. Bob, arguing this infringes on his personal freedoms, challenges the law under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming it discriminates against those who hold deep religious objections to vaccinations. Result: The court applies strict scrutiny, acknowledging the fundamental right to practice religion freely. However, the government successfully demonstrates a compelling interest in public health and safety, showing that mandatory vaccinations are necessary to achieve herd immunity and prevent the disease's spread. The court finds the law is narrowly tailored, as it includes exceptions for valid medical reasons, thus constituting the least restrictive means to protect public health. Therefore, the government prevails.
Hypo 2: In New Hypoland, the government passes a law that only people from certain countries can enter specific professions, arguing it's to protect national security. Bob, who is from one of the banned countries, sues, claiming the law discriminates based on nationality, a suspect class, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Result: The court uses strict scrutiny because the law discriminates based on nationality. Finding the law unnecessarily excludes qualified candidates without being narrowly tailored to its security goal, the court rules it unconstitutional. A less restrictive way to address security concerns could involve enhanced background checks and security clearances for all applicants, regardless of nationality.
Hypo 3: Hypofornia passes a law stating that only graduates from its state university can run for public office, aiming to ensure candidates understand local issues. Bob, a graduate from a neighboring state's university, challenges the law, arguing it infringes on the fundamental right to participate in the political process, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Result: Under strict scrutiny, the court examines the law because it infringes on the fundamental democratic right to run for office. Finding the law unnecessarily excludes qualified candidates and isn't the least restrictive way to ensure candidates understand local issues, the court strikes it down. A less restrictive approach could involve offering a comprehensive test on local issues to all candidates, regardless of where they graduated from.
Hypo 4: In response to a severe and highly contagious disease outbreak, Hypofornia enacts a law requiring mandatory vaccinations for all its citizens, with exceptions only for medical issues. Bob, arguing this infringes on his personal freedoms, challenges the law under the Equal Protection Clause, claiming it discriminates against those who hold deep religious objections to vaccinations. Result: The court applies strict scrutiny, acknowledging the fundamental right to practice religion freely. However, the government successfully demonstrates a compelling interest in public health and safety, showing that mandatory vaccinations are necessary to achieve herd immunity and prevent the disease's spread. The court finds the law is narrowly tailored, as it includes exceptions for valid medical reasons, thus constituting the least restrictive means to protect public health. Therefore, the government prevails.
Visual Aids
