Constitutional Law · Judicial Scrutiny Standards
Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used to evaluate laws and government actions that discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics, requiring that they further an important governmental interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
Source: Constitutional Law · Judicial Scrutiny Standards
Intermediate scrutiny occupies a middle ground within the hierarchy of judicial scrutiny standards, positioned between rational basis review and strict scrutiny. It is applied primarily in cases dealing with classifications based on gender and legitimacy. Under this standard, the government must show that the challenged policy or law serves an important governmental objective and that the means employed are substantially related to achieving that objective.
To determine whether the government meets the intermediate scrutiny standard, courts often assess the importance of the governmental interest pursued. A legitimate governmental interest may include things like public safety, promoting equality, or advancing the interests of an important social order. Following this, the courts analyze whether the means chosen are not only related to but also proportionate to achieving the stated objective.
Intermediate scrutiny does not demand that the government demonstrate that the law is the best means of achieving the goal, rather it necessitates that there is a significant correlation between the means employed and the desired end. This allows for some leeway compared to strict scrutiny, which necessitates narrowly tailored means for compelling governmental interests.
Moreover, it is critical to note that this standard requires more than a mere rational basis but less than the compelling state interest standard. Thus, there is more protection than in cases bearing the rational basis test but not as robust as in those governed by strict scrutiny, making intermediate scrutiny an essential standard in cases involving discrimination and fundamental rights.
The concept of intermediate scrutiny was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Craig v. Boren (1976), where the Court established that gender classifications are subjected to a standard of review that falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis review.
Established the intermediate scrutiny standard for gender discrimination cases.
Struck down the male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute under intermediate scrutiny.
Held that the exclusion of men from a nursing school was unconstitutional due to not meeting intermediate scrutiny.
A state law that provides preferential hiring to women for a job in a traditionally male-dominated field could be challenged. Under intermediate scrutiny, the state would need to demonstrate that this law serves an important governmental interest and that the law effectively advances that interest without overly broad effects.
Confusion: Intermediate scrutiny is the same as strict scrutiny.
Clarification: Intermediate scrutiny is less rigorous than strict scrutiny and does not require a compelling interest, only an important one.
Confusion: All gender-based classifications are assumed unconstitutional under intermediate scrutiny.
Clarification: While all laws that discriminate based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny, they can be constitutional if they satisfy the important governmental interest test.
When analyzing a case involving gender or legitimacy discrimination, clearly identify the governmental interest and apply the substantial relation test to determine if the law survives intermediate scrutiny.