Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: What Are The Elements Of Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
Intermediate scrutiny is applied to laws that discriminate based on gender or legitimacy and demands that the law serve an important governmental interest and be substantially related to achieving that interest.
Intermediate scrutiny is a level of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws that classify individuals in a manner that does not fall under strict scrutiny but is also not considered rational basis review. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that the challenged classification serves an important governmental interest. This means that the law must be more than merely a convenient way of achieving legislative goals; it must address some significant objective.
The second key element of intermediate scrutiny involves the relationship between the means employed by the law and the ends it seeks to achieve. The government must show that the law is substantially related to the important interest it is purported to advance. This requires a certain level of closeness or fit between the means and the ends—mere rationality will not suffice. Courts look for evidence that the law effectively furthers its goal and is tailored in a way that is not overly broad or narrowly focused.
Throughout the application of intermediate scrutiny, courts often rely on empirical evidence and case facts that indicate whether the government's justifications hold water. This means that mere assertions of interest do not suffice. The courts tackle such scrutiny through examining the fit between the legislative classification and the government’s stated aims, often involving detailed factual assessments of how the legislation performs in practice.
Intermediate scrutiny is particularly significant in cases involving gender discrimination or illegitimacy. The U.S. Supreme Court established intermediate scrutiny in the landmark case of Craig v. Boren (1976), which involved a challenge to a state law permitting the sale of nonintoxicating beer to females aged 18 and older, but only to males aged 21 and older. The Court found the law unconstitutional, asserting that it did not serve an important governmental interest and was not substantially related to the objective of combating harmful drinking.
In summary, laws subjected to intermediate scrutiny must meet two main criteria: they must serve an important governmental interest, and there must be a substantial relationship between the law and the interest being pursued. This ensures a balanced approach, allowing for some regulation while protecting fundamental rights against arbitrary or discriminatory governance.
Consider a state law that requires a minimum height for police officers; if challenged, the law would be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny. The state must show that height is substantially related to effective job performance and serves an important governmental interest in public safety and effective law enforcement.
Intermediate scrutiny often appears on exams in the context of gender discrimination or classifications based on illegitimacy. Students should be prepared to analyze cases, apply the standard, and evaluate whether the relevant interests and means satisfy the criteria.