What Is Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law?

Intermediate scrutiny is a judicial standard used in constitutional law to evaluate laws that discriminate based on gender or legitimacy. Under this standard, the law must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to achieving that interest.

Intermediate scrutiny is the middle tier of scrutiny applied by courts to government actions and legislation, primarily in cases involving classification based on gender or illegitimacy. This standard was clarified in the landmark case of Craig v. Boren (1976), where the Supreme Court held that gender-based classifications must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. This standard is less stringent than strict scrutiny, which applies to racial classifications and is often deemed presumptively invalid, but more rigorous than rational basis review, which uses a mere 'rational relationship' test.

To satisfy intermediate scrutiny, the government must identify an important interest that it aims to advance through the challenged law or policy. Additionally, there must be a robust connection between the law and the interest it purports to serve. This requirement prevents arbitrary discrimination while still allowing the government some leeway in achieving its objectives. Cases like United States v. Virginia (1996) underscore this point by emphasizing that the government must provide an exceedingly persuasive justification for any gender-based distinctions.

Intermediate scrutiny is primarily applied in gender discrimination cases, but it has been extended to some contexts involving illegitimacy and other quasi-suspect classifications. The principle behind it is that while distinctions can be made, they must be based on more than mere stereotypes or over-broad generalizations about women and men. Therefore, courts often closely examine the evidence presented to ascertain whether the governmental interest is indeed significant and the means chosen to achieve that interest are aligned with the stated purpose.

In practice, laws failing to meet this standard are often struck down as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Given the evolving nature of societal views on gender and equality, courts remain vigilant in scrutinizing cases that invoke this standard, making intermediate scrutiny a pivotal part of constitutional law's treatment of discrimination claims.

• 1Craig v. Boren (1976) - Established that gender classifications require intermediate scrutiny.
• 2United States v. Virginia (1996) - Held that exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
• 3Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) - Ruled against a gender-based admission policy that barred men from a nursing program.

• what-is-strict-scrutiny-constitutional-law
• what-is-rational-basis-test-constitutional-law
• how-do-courts-apply-equal-protection-clause