Intermediate Scrutiny

Definition

Intermediate scrutiny is a legal standard used by courts to evaluate laws and government actions that involve discrimination based on sex or gender. This level of scrutiny requires that the law or action being challenged serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to achieving that objective. It strikes a balance between the more lenient rational basis review and the strict scrutiny applied to fundamental rights or suspect classifications.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intermediate scrutiny was established in the landmark case United States v. Virginia (1996), where the Supreme Court ruled against the male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute.
2. Under intermediate scrutiny, laws must be closely examined to ensure they serve an important state interest, and there must be a significant connection between the means and ends.
3. This standard has been applied primarily in cases involving gender discrimination, but it can also relate to issues of sexual orientation in certain contexts.
4. Unlike strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling interest, intermediate scrutiny allows for a broader range of governmental interests to be considered as 'important.'
5. Intermediate scrutiny aims to strike a balance by recognizing that some forms of discrimination may be justifiable if they are substantially related to important objectives.

Review Questions

• How does intermediate scrutiny differ from strict scrutiny in terms of its application and requirements?
  • Intermediate scrutiny differs from strict scrutiny primarily in the level of justification required for government actions. While strict scrutiny demands a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest, intermediate scrutiny only requires an important governmental objective and a substantial relationship between the law and that objective. This means that laws involving gender discrimination can be upheld under intermediate scrutiny if they serve significant state interests without being as rigorously tested as those under strict scrutiny.
• Discuss how intermediate scrutiny has influenced legal rulings regarding gender discrimination in recent years.
  • Intermediate scrutiny has significantly influenced legal rulings regarding gender discrimination by providing a framework through which courts analyze laws affecting women and men differently. In cases like United States v. Virginia, courts have found policies that disadvantage one gender without sufficient justification unconstitutional. This standard has led to more equitable treatment under the law by ensuring that gender-based distinctions are closely examined and only upheld if they serve legitimate governmental interests in a substantial way.
• Evaluate the implications of using intermediate scrutiny for laws addressing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  • Using intermediate scrutiny for laws addressing discrimination based on sexual orientation can lead to critical legal outcomes that affect individual rights and societal norms. By applying this standard, courts may provide stronger protections against discriminatory practices, requiring states to justify their laws with important governmental interests. This could expand civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, reflecting evolving societal views on equality while balancing government interests. Ultimately, the use of intermediate scrutiny could pave the way for greater recognition and protection against discrimination in various legal contexts.

Related terms

Strict Scrutiny:

The highest standard of review used by courts to evaluate laws that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored means.

Rational Basis Review: The lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts when reviewing legislation or government action, requiring only that the law be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

Discrimination:

The unfair treatment of individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age, which can lead to legal challenges under various standards of scrutiny.