Question

In: Economics

Three different tests are used by the Supreme Court as standards in reviewing cases which raise...

Three different tests are used by the Supreme Court as standards in reviewing cases which raise issues of equal protection. What are the three tests? When is each applied? In your opinion, why have different tests been developed?

Solutions

Expert Solution

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest level of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions or laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that legislation or government actions which discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and alienage must pass this level of scrutiny to survive a challenge that the policy violates constitutional equal protection.

This high level of scrutiny is also applied whenever a "fundamental right" is being threatened by a law, like the right to marriage.

Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that:

  • There is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and
  • The law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

Intermediate Scrutiny

The next level of judicial focus on challenged laws is less demanding than strict scrutiny. In order for a law to pass intermediate scrutiny, it must:

  • Serve an important government objective, and
  • Be substantially related to achieving the objective.

This test was first accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 to be used whenever a law discriminates based on gender or sex. Some federal appellate courts and state supreme courts have also applied this level of scrutiny to cases involving sexual orientation.

As with strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny also places the burden of proof on the government.

Rational Basis Review

This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to challenged laws, and it has historically required very little for a law to pass as constitutional.

Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:

  • The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
  • There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.

Courts using this test are highly deferential to the government and will often deem a law to have a rational basis as long as that law had any conceivable, rational basis -- even if the government never provided one. This test typically applies to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, or felony status.

These levels of scrutiny can and will continue to change as courts apply them in the future


Related Solutions

explain how to understand what the Supreme Court does and how to understand the cases it...
explain how to understand what the Supreme Court does and how to understand the cases it hears in America. Please be comprehensive about the whole process.
Analyse the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Gratz and Grutter cases. Why does the court allow...
Analyse the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Gratz and Grutter cases. Why does the court allow race to be used in one case anc not the other? how is the court using Scrutiny?
Two of the most important Supreme Court cases dealing with long arm jurisdiction are the International...
Two of the most important Supreme Court cases dealing with long arm jurisdiction are the International Shoe case (in the text) and the Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson (Supreme Court website or other source) case. What is the minimum contacts standard? How does it work, and when is it applied?
Explain using several examples, what types of cases the Supreme Court of Erie County and the...
Explain using several examples, what types of cases the Supreme Court of Erie County and the Western District of New York, United States District Court have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over?
) In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students...
) In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating in competitive after-school activities such as athletics. Does drug testing reduce use of illegal drugs? A study compared two similar high schools in Oregon. Wahtonka High School tested athletes at random and Warrenton High School did not. In a confidential survey, 8 of 132 athletes at Wahtonka and 29 of 111 athletes at Warrenton said they were using drugs. Regard these athletes as...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating in competitive after-school activities such as athletics. Does drug testing reduce use of illegal drugs? A study compared two similar high schools in Oregon. Wahtonka High School tested athletes at random, and Warrenton High School did not. In a confidential survey, 7 of 135 athletes at Wahtonka and 27 of 141 athletes at Warrenton said they were using drugs. Regard these athletes as SRSs...
(1 point) In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of...
(1 point) In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating in competitive after-school activities such as athletics. Does drug testing reduce use of illegal drugs? A study compared two similar high schools in Oregon. Wahtonka High School tested athletes at random and Warrenton High School did not. In a confidential survey, 4 of 131 athletes at Wahtonka and 20 of 114 athletes at Warrenton said they were using drugs. Regard these athletes...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating in competitive after-school activities such as athletics. Does drug testing reduce use of illegal drugs? A study compared two similar high schools in Oregon. Wahtonka High School tested athletes at random and Warrenton High School did not. In a confidential survey, 8 of 132 athletes at Wahtonka and 29 of 111 athletes at Warrenton said they were using drugs. Regard these athletes as SRSs...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating in competitive after-school activities such as athletics. Does drug testing reduce use of illegal drugs? A study compared two similar high schools in Oregon. Wahtonka High School tested athletes at random and Warrenton High School did not. In a confidential survey, 8 of 133 athletes at Wahtonka and 27 of 115 athletes at Warrenton said they were using drugs. Regard these athletes as SRSs...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating...
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that schools could require random drug tests of students participating in competitive after-school activities such as athletics. Does drug testing reduce use of illegal drugs? A study compared two similar high schools in Oregon. Wahtonka High School tested athletes at random and Warrenton High School did not. In a confidential survey, 8 of 133 athletes at Wahtonka and 27 of 115 athletes at Warrenton said they were using drugs. Regard these athletes as SRSs...
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT