Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: What Happens When Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
When a law or government action is subject to intermediate scrutiny, it must serve an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest. This standard is applied primarily in cases involving gender discrimination and other quasi-suspect classifications.
Intermediate scrutiny is a legal standard used by courts to evaluate laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or that involve other classifications that are not subject to strict scrutiny. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that the challenged law serves an important governmental interest and that the law is substantially related to achieving that interest. This is a less intense level of review compared to strict scrutiny, which requires a law to serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
In practical application, intermediate scrutiny is often used in cases involving gender discrimination. For example, in *United States v. Virginia* (1996), the Supreme Court applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy, stating that the state had not provided an exceedingly persuasive justification for such discrimination.
Another key case is *Craig v. Boren* (1976), where the Court found that a law allowing women to purchase beer at a younger age than men violated the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling illustrated how the law failed to show a substantial relationship between the gender-based classification and the stated goal of reducing drunk driving.
The burden of proof rests with the state when law is challenged under the intermediate scrutiny standard. Courts will require the state to produce evidence supporting the importance and relevance of the governmental interest. Importantly, intermediate scrutiny is sometimes critiqued for its inconsistency in application across different contexts, as the determination of what constitutes an important governmental interest can be subjective.
Overall, the implications of intermediate scrutiny are significant as they shape the legal landscape concerning gender discrimination and other classifications. The evaluation of important interests and substantial relationships is crucial for law students to understand as they prepare to analyze constitutional challenges in their studies and future practices.
Consider a state law that permits only women to participate in certain scholarships aimed at addressing gender inequalities in education. If challenged, the law could undergo intermediate scrutiny wherein the state must show it has an important governmental interest in reducing gender disparity and that this law is substantially related to achieving that objective.
Questions about intermediate scrutiny often appear in exams as hypotheticals requiring a discussion of equal protection claims, classifying governmental interests, or evaluating gender discrimination cases.