Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: Is It Possible To Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
Yes, intermediate scrutiny is a widely recognized standard of review in constitutional law used to evaluate laws that affect certain protected classes and conduct that does not warrant strict scrutiny.
Intermediate scrutiny is applied by courts when evaluating laws that discriminate based on quasi-suspect classifications like gender or illegitimacy. This standard requires the government to show that the challenged classification serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. Unlike strict scrutiny, which applies to classifications based on race or ethnicity, intermediate scrutiny affords a more lenient examination while still providing a level of protection from discrimination.
Key cases of intermediate scrutiny include Craig v. Boren (1976), which invalidated an Oklahoma law that imposed different drinking ages for men and women based on an inadequate statistical justification. In United States v. Virginia (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admission policy failed to satisfy intermediate scrutiny as it had not demonstrated an ‘exceedingly persuasive’ justification.
Courts have consistently employed intermediate scrutiny in cases related to gender discrimination and similar classifications. It is considered a middle ground between rational basis review and strict scrutiny, allowing for a more rigorous examination than mere rationality standard, which could justify nearly any legislation.
The application of intermediate scrutiny highlights the nuanced approach that courts take towards evaluating equality and discrimination claims under the Constitution. By recognizing that certain classes deserve more protection than others but less than the most overt forms of discrimination, this standard continues to evolve through case law, affecting legislation and societal norms on a substantial level.
Imagine a state law that requires different minimum wages based on gender. Under intermediate scrutiny, the state must demonstrate an important interest, like promoting workforce equity, and connection to how the wage structure helps achieve that goal.
Intermediate scrutiny frequently appears in exams as a necessary comparison standard alongside strict scrutiny and rational basis scrutiny, often requiring students to analyze the applicability and effects of these standards.