Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: How To Analyze Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review that requires a law to further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. This balance seeks to evaluate laws that affect certain fundamental rights without reaching the higher bar of strict scrutiny.
Intermediate scrutiny serves as a balancing test in constitutional law, primarily applied to cases involving gender discrimination and certain other regulatory schemes. Under this standard, the government must show that the challenged law advances an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. This differs from strict scrutiny, where the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, making intermediate scrutiny a middle ground in levels of review.
Key cases illustrating intermediate scrutiny include *Craig v. Boren* (1976), where the Supreme Court struck down a gender-based drinking age law, stating it did not serve an important governmental interest; and *United States v. Virginia* (1996), which held that the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy failed to meet the intermediate scrutiny standard as it did not provide an exceedingly persuasive justification for gender discrimination.
Additionally, while evaluating whether a governmental interest is 'important', courts consider the broader social context and legislative history behind the law in question. Factors such as existing sex stereotypes, historical injustices, and social data may also contribute to a court's analysis of whether the law is 'substantially related' to its stated objectives. This means that the means employed must be reasonably proportional to the ends sought.
It’s critical when analyzing intermediate scrutiny to assess both the importance of the governmental interest and the directness of the connection between the means and the aim. Courts often look to whether less discriminatory alternatives could achieve the same result as a relevant consideration in their decision-making process.
Suppose a state passes a law requiring that a certain percentage of state contracting work goes to women-owned businesses. A court would analyze this law under intermediate scrutiny by determining if increasing economic opportunities for women serves an important government interest and if the law is substantially related to that interest, weighing its effectiveness against potential less discriminatory alternatives.
In exams, students may encounter hypothetical scenarios requiring them to apply intermediate scrutiny to laws impacting gender or legitimacy classifications. It's crucial to articulate both the government interest and analyze how effectively the means employed relates to that interest.