Explanations 
Flashcards 
StudySmarter AI 
Notes 
Study Plans 
Study Sets 
Exams 
Magazine 
Find a job 
Mobile App 
Jump to a key chapter
Understanding Intermediate Scrutiny in the US Legal System
Coursework in law often includes delving into various legal standards of review, and intermediate scrutiny is among them. A functional understanding of this concept can enhance your approach to court cases and constitutional laws significantly.
Intermediate scrutiny is a test used in some contexts to test the constitutionality of certain laws. This standard of review lies in the grey area between rational basis review, the most lenient standard, and strict scrutiny, the most stringent.
Introduction to What is Intermediate Scrutiny
This section will introduce you to the operational definition of intermediate scrutiny. You will explore its implications and significance in the judicial framework. Moreover, you'll learn about the various contexts in which it applies.
Intermediate scrutiny is a legal test falling between rational basis review and strict scrutiny. It is employed to evaluate the constitutionality of certain statutes. If a statute is discriminatory regarding gender or legitimacy, intermediate scrutiny is necessitated. The law in question should serve an important government objective and should be substantially related to achieving that objective.
One of the most significant implications of intermediate scrutiny is its application in discrimination cases. This standard of review has been pivotal in many landmark rulings, shaping the legal landscape of equality and justice.
Historical Evolution of Intermediate Scrutiny
To better understand the concept of intermediate scrutiny, it is beneficial to delve into its historical evolution. Exploring the origins and development of this legal standard gives it context and helps you understand its significant role in shaping legal judgments.
Intermediate scrutiny emerged in the mid-20th century, expanding the binary strict and rational basis review system. It was first applied in the 1976 case Craig v. Boren, dealing with gender discrimination.
In Craig v. Boren, Oklahoma's statute set different drinking ages for men and women. The Supreme Court used intermediate scrutiny to determine whether the statute served an important government objective and whether it was substantially related to that objective. It was concluded that the law did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test.
Exploring the Intermediate Scrutiny Test
After understanding the intermediate scrutiny basics, it's essential to delve into the intermediate scrutiny test itself. What makes a law come under intermediate scrutiny, and what are the key elements of this test?
For a law to be considered under intermediate scrutiny, it must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. The law under scrutiny must further a significant government interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.
Key Elements of the Intermediate Scrutiny Test
The following are the key elements of the intermediate scrutiny test, which help in determining whether a law passes the intermediate scrutiny or not:
- The law serves an important governmental objective.
- The discriminatory means employed are substantially related to achieving that objective.
Consider a hypothetical law that employs gender-based discrimination for achieving lower car accident rates. The law would be under intermediate scrutiny. If it can be proved that there is a substantial relation between gender discrimination and lower car accident rates, then the law might pass the intermediate scrutiny test.
Practical Application: Intermediate Scrutiny Examples
Intermediate scrutiny isn't just a theoretical concept; it's an active part of our justice system. This principle is applied in numerous court judgments. Understanding these practical applications can deepen your comprehension of intermediate scrutiny and strengthen your interpretation of relevant cases.
Influential Court Cases Applying Intermediate Scrutiny
In the US legal system, there have been quite a few influential cases where intermediate scrutiny was invoked. Each of these have made distinct contributions to building the legal precedence for future cases. Let's delve into them.
The United States v. Virginia case, often referred to as the VMI case, was a landmark Supreme Court case that concluded in 1996. This case applied intermediate scrutiny in evaluating Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) male-only admissions policy. The case found that the admissions policy served no important governmental objective and was not substantially related to achieving any such objective.
In this case, Virginia attempted to maintain a male-only admissions policy at VMI, arguing an important governmental objective was served - preparing citizens for leadership. However, the court decided that gender-exclusive schooling did not serve this objective and had no substantial relationship with achieving it. Hence, the policy was struck down under intermediate scrutiny.
Another prominent case was Craig v. Boren, which set the standard for intermediate scrutiny. It centered on an Oklahoma law that permitted women above 18 to purchase 3.2% alcohol beer while setting the age limit at 21 for men.
The court critically applied intermediate scrutiny to this gender-based difference in Oklahoma's alcohol law. The statute was found to be not substantially related to traffic safety, the claimed important governmental objective. Therefore, it did not pass the intermediate scrutiny evaluation.
Analysing Outcomes in Intermediate Scrutiny Cases
The outcomes of various cases can differ vastly based on how successfully intermediate scrutiny is applied. The level of scrutiny can influence the judgement or the approach taken by the court towards a case. Below are these possible outcomes:
- If the law serves an important governmental objective and the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to that objective, then the law stands.
- If the court determines that it doesn't meet either or both of these requirements, then the law will be invalidated.
Understanding this gives useful insight on how courts analyze cases under this standard of review.
An interesting case to study under this light is the Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney. The Supreme Court used intermediate scrutiny to evaluate a Massachusetts law giving veterans a preference in state jobs. Although the law resulted in discrimination as majority of veterans were men, it passed intermediate scrutiny test. The court held that the law wasn't created with the intent of discriminating based on gender and served an important governmental objective of rewarding military service.
These examples underline the nuance with which laws are examined under intermediate scrutiny. They also underscore the significant influence this review standard has on the American legal landscape. The outcomes not only help in understanding the working of intermediate scrutiny but also provide insight into how legal principles get applied in shaping judgements.
Strict Scrutiny vs Intermediate Scrutiny: Highlighting Differences and Similarities
The backbone of the legal and judicial system rests on the standard of review protocols such as strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny. These provide a benchmark for reviewing laws against constitutional rights and freedoms. Both are different weapons in the judicial branch's arsenal, each serving unique functions under distinct circumstances.
Factors that Differentiate Strict Scrutiny from Intermediate Scrutiny
Understanding the factors that differentiate strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny entails a breakdown of the unique characteristics and application areas for both. Although similar in design, they diverge in terms of the severity of impact and the level of strictness employed.
Strict scrutiny is typically applied when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or severe discrimination is affected. It involves a law or policy that must fulfil two criteria to be deemed constitutional: it must further a compelling governmental interest, and it must do so in the least restrictive or narrowly tailored means.
On the other hand, intermediate scrutiny—a level down in terms of strictness—applies in instances of discrimination on the basis of gender or legitimacy. A law under this protocol needs to serve an important government objective and must be substantially related to achieving that objective.
Below are some key differences between the two:
| Strict Scrutiny | Intermediate Scrutiny |
| Used when fundamental rights are involved or severe discrimination is present. | Applied when there's discrimination based on gender or legitimacy. |
| The law must further a compelling governmental interest. | The law must serve an important governmental objective. |
| The law must be the least restrictive means. | The law must be substantially related to achieving the objective. |
Both strict and intermediate scrutiny are valuable instruments of the judiciary to keep the legislative branch and executive actions within their constitutional boundaries.
Instances where Strict Scrutiny is Applied over Intermediate Scrutiny
In understanding when strict scrutiny takes precedence over intermediate scrutiny, it invariably comes down to the level of rights and freedoms that are potentially infringed by a statute or policy. Below are a few significant pointers to differentiate the deployment of these judicial measures:
- Strict scrutiny would be applied over intermediate scrutiny when race, ethnicity, religion or a fundamental constitutional right is involved. This is because these areas are of outmost importance, and thus, require the more stringent review.
- For example, laws that affect free speech, freedom of association and assembly, right to vote, and access to the judicial process usually invite strict scrutiny.
Consider the hypothetical case where a law restricts the right of a certain ethnic group to vote. This law would fall under strict scrutiny because it infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right and involves ethnic discrimination. The law would need to fulfill stricter requirements as compared to intermediate scrutiny: it must be narrowly tailored and further a compelling government interest.
Contrarily, if the law involves gender discrimination or legitimisation queries, intermediate scrutiny is invoked over strict scrutiny. This is due to the relatively lesser degree of strictness associated with intermediate scrutiny, making it suitably applicable for these situations.
The determination of whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny is a nuanced assessment task of the judiciary, scrutinising not only the law in question, but the group it affects, the socio-political context, and the potential ramifications. The thresholds for both reviews, though connected, operate on different planes of judicial reasoning and demand different levels of justification from the defending entity.
Equal Protection and Intermediate Scrutiny: Exploring the Relationship
The fabric of constitutional law is intricately woven with principles like equal protection and judicial reviews such as intermediate scrutiny. These concepts don't exist in isolation; they deeply intersect and influence each other. The relationship between equal protection principles and intermediate scrutiny forms an essential aspect of the constitutional law's study.
Role of Intermediate Scrutiny in Upholding Equal Protection
Under the banner of constitutional law, the role of intermediate scrutiny is a significant one, particularly when it comes to upholding equal protection principles. Established under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the principle of 'equal protection of laws' ensures that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection.
Equal protection clause is a part of Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, stating that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".
The role of intermediate scrutiny comes into play when equal protection is examined in the context of gender or legitimacy-based law differentiation, following which the law invoked is subjected to the test of intermediate scrutiny.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the courts attempt to determine whether the challenged classification serves an important governmental objective, and if there is a substantial relationship between the objective and the classification.
- If a law satisfies these conditions, it withstands the intermediate scrutiny test and is deemed valid under the equal protection clause.
Take, for instance, an imaginary state law that mandates different age requirements for obtaining a driver's license based on gender. This law would invoke intermediate scrutiny as it differentiates on the basis of gender. The state would have to prove that there's an important governmental objective being served through such differentiation, and there's a substantial relation between gender differentiation and achieving that objective. If these conditions aren't met, the law would fail the intermediate scrutiny test and be rendered unconstitutional as it violates equal protection principles.
Courts' application of intermediate scrutiny varies on a case by case basis, reflecting a nuanced understanding of both the specific law in question and wider equal protection principles. The outcome offers a valuable interpretation of how the objective of equal protection drives the application of intermediate scrutiny. This effectively translates into ensuring that laws don't unduly benefit or disadvantage specific groups, thereby cementing the concept of equality in a democratic society.
Impact of Equal Protection Doctrine on Intermediate Scrutiny Jurisprudence
Delving deeper into the connection between these legal principles helps understand the impact equal protection doctrine has had on the development of intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence. Over the years, several court rulings have contributed to moulding the method for carrying out intermediate scrutiny, guided largely by equal protection principles.
Intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence deals with the collection of court decisions and legal theories associated with the application of intermediate scrutiny. It illustrates how courts have interactively applied this test to different laws over time.
- For example, Equal protection principles have steered the jurisprudence of intermediate scrutiny towards a more critical analysis of gender-based classifications, ensuring they serve important governmental objectives.
- Through rulings and legal discourse, the equal protection doctrine has cast a lasting influence on the formulation of the intermediate scrutiny test, notably demanding adequate justification for sex-based discrimination and legitimisation queries.
In the landmark case Reed v. Reed (1971), the development of intermediate scrutiny was significantly influenced by the equal protection principles. In this case, a state law that preferred men over women in estate administration matters faced scrutiny. The Supreme Court ruled against the law on the grounds of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, shaping the future course of gender-based regulations under intermediate scrutiny.
The evolution of intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence under the influence of equal protection doctrine encapsulates vital shifts in society and judicial philosophy. As the concept of equal protection grows and adjusts with societal changes, so does intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence, reflecting wider changes to the interpretation of laws and constitutional principles.
Intermediate Scrutiny - Key takeaways
- What is Intermediate Scrutiny: A legal standard first applied in the 1976 case Craig v. Boren, dealing with gender discrimination. Used for reviewing laws, policies, etc. that involve discrimination based on gender or legitimacy.
- Intermediate Scrutiny Test: A law undergoes this test if it serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to achieving those objectives. It further a significant government interest and should do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.
- Intermediate Scrutiny Examples: Examples include the Supreme Court cases Craig v. Boren and United States v. Virginia, which involved gender discrimination i.e., different drinking ages for men and women and a male-only admissions policy, respectively.
- Strict Scrutiny vs Intermediate Scrutiny: While both are standards of review, strict scrutiny is applied when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or severe discrimination occurs. Intermediate scrutiny, on the other hand, is applied in instances of discrimination on the basis of gender or legitimacy.
- Equal Protection Intermediate Scrutiny: This relates to upholding equal protection principles under constitutional law, which involves examining laws in the context of gender or legitimacy-based law differentiation, and subjecting those laws to the test of intermediate scrutiny.
Learn faster with the 12 flashcards about Intermediate Scrutiny
Sign up for free to gain access to all our flashcards.
Frequently Asked Questions about Intermediate Scrutiny
About StudySmarter
StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.
Learn more