That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. United States (1944), noted that “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. In the area of racial discrimination, the Court, in Korematsu v. Strict scrutiny refers to the standard used by the Court when assessing the constitutionality of governmental actions that may interfere with fundamental rights or potentially discriminate on racial grounds. The third level of judicial scrutiny is the most difficult for the government to satisfy. The law treating men differently than women, Brennan argued, “did not serve important governmental objectives and substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” Brennan, Jr., the Court ruled that under the newly instituted intermediate standard of review, the Oklahoma legislature could not satisfy the requirements set up by the test. In an opinion written by Justice William J. In Craig, the Court addressed the issue of gender discrimination by reviewing an Oklahoma statute that prohibited the sale of 3.2 percent beer to women under the age of eighteen and men under the age of twenty-one. Boren (1976) is the principal case that formally introduced an intermediate level of scrutiny. Intermediate review requires that the government identify an important governmental objective that is substantially furthered by that particular action.Ĭraig v. Because of the heightened nature of the review, the Court does not adopt the presumption of constitutionality standard found in the ordinary level of scrutiny but instead mandates that the government demonstrate more than simply a reasonable purpose for the law. The impetus for applying a more rigorous test in the areas of gender and illegitimacy stems from the perception that these groups require additional or heightened judicial protection due to their status as (numerical or de facto) minorities. (National Archives)Īn intermediate, or heightened, level of scrutiny is applied by the Court when a government action potentially discriminates on the basis of gender or illegitimacy and therefore violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Relocation order posted in San Francisco in April, 1942. Murgia Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. (1955), and ones in which the legislative classification does not warrant increased judicial protection, such as Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. The Court regularly uses ordinary scrutiny in cases involving economic regulation, such as Williamson v. If the government can do so, then the Court will reject the argument of the petitioner and the action will be deemed constitutional. When applying an ordinary level of scrutiny, the Court employs the rational basis test, which asks the government to demonstrate that the action is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. Here, the burden to demonstrate a violation of the Constitution falls on the individual, as the Court presumes the governmental action in question is constitutional. The lowest standard of review is defined as ordinary, or minimal, scrutiny. The Court uses three levels of judicial scrutiny. Judicial scrutiny Judicial scrutiny The Three Levels These tests can take many forms and can be used in many different constitutional inquiries, but the most common tests are those that involve the Court’s scrutinizing governmental activity. Variations in levels of review also signify the Court’s willingness to provide (through more rigorous tests) increased judicial protection for “discreet and insular minorities,” as it did in United States v. The use of standards permits each party to know, prior to the actual hearing, how the judiciary will probably approach the case and how the judiciary is likely to resolve any single issue. The Supreme Court employs tests, or standards of review, with the aim of giving parties to a specific case some reasonable expectation as to the outcome of their particular constitutional claims. The three levels of judicial scrutiny are strict scrutiny, intermediate (or heightened) scrutiny, and ordinary (or minimum) scrutiny. Standard by which the Supreme Court evaluates the constitutionality of certain governmental actions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |