What is Intermediate Scrutiny?

Intermediate Scrutiny

Quick Answer

This legal standard is used by courts to evaluate laws that affect certain rights. It requires the government to show that a law is substantially related to an important government interest.

Overview

Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of review used by courts when evaluating laws that may discriminate based on certain characteristics, such as gender. Under this standard, the government must prove that the law serves an important objective and that the means chosen to achieve that objective are substantially related to it. This is a higher standard than the rational basis test but lower than strict scrutiny, which is applied to laws affecting fundamental rights or suspect classifications. One example of intermediate scrutiny in action is the case of United States v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court evaluated the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy. The Court found that the policy did not serve an important governmental interest and was not substantially related to any objective. This ruling demonstrated how intermediate scrutiny can protect individuals from discriminatory practices while still allowing the government to pursue important goals. The significance of intermediate scrutiny lies in its balance between protecting individual rights and allowing the government to regulate for the public good. It ensures that laws that may disadvantage certain groups are carefully examined, promoting fairness and equality. This standard plays a crucial role in constitutional law, as it helps maintain a check on government power while recognizing the need for some regulation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What types of cases use intermediate scrutiny?

Intermediate scrutiny is often applied in cases involving gender discrimination or laws that affect certain rights but are not deemed fundamental. Courts use this standard to ensure that such laws are justified by important governmental interests.

How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny?

Strict scrutiny is applied to laws that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, requiring the government to prove a compelling interest. In contrast, intermediate scrutiny requires a lesser burden of proof, focusing on important interests rather than compelling ones.

Can you give another example of intermediate scrutiny in action?

Another example is the case of Craig v. Boren, where the Supreme Court struck down an Oklahoma law that allowed women to purchase alcohol at a younger age than men. The Court ruled that the law was not substantially related to the stated government interest of reducing drunk driving, illustrating the application of intermediate scrutiny.