Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: What Is The Difference Between Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of review used by courts to evaluate laws that involve significant governmental interests and involve discrimination based on gender or legitimacy. It requires the government to show that the law is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
Intermediate scrutiny is one of the levels of scrutiny applied by courts in constitutional law, particularly in equal protection cases. It is primarily used to evaluate laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or legitimacy. Under this standard, the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the law or policy in question serves an important governmental interest and that the means chosen to achieve that interest are substantially related to the end goal. This is a more lenient standard than strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling government interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Unlike rational basis review, which applies a more deferential standard to legislation, intermediate scrutiny offers a more heightened level of judicial review. In applying intermediate scrutiny, courts assess whether the governmental interest is indeed important and whether the law is substantially connected to that interest. The "substantially related" requirement signifies that the means must not only serve the governmental interest but also must do so in a way that is appropriately tailored, avoiding both overreach and underreach.
Key cases that have shaped the application of intermediate scrutiny include Craig v. Boren (1976), where the Supreme Court invalidated an Oklahoma law allowing women to purchase beer at a younger age than men. The Court determined that this law did not meet the intermediate scrutiny standard because the justification provided was insufficiently related to the stated gender discrimination. Another pivotal case is United States v. Virginia (1996), in which the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy, finding it inadequately justified and discriminatory against women.
The practical implications of intermediate scrutiny require plaintiffs to present a compelling case to show that a law discriminates and that the government’s argument falls short of the required standard. Courts take into account both empirical evidence and theoretical underpinnings of governmental interests when applying this standard. Hence, intermediate scrutiny effectively serves to highlight the importance of gender equality and the challenge of outdated discriminatory practices in law and policy.
If a state passes a law requiring all parents to meet certain financial stability criteria before obtaining custody of a child, this law might be evaluated under intermediate scrutiny if it disproportionately affects single fathers. The government would need to prove that the financial requirements are substantially related to the important governmental interest of ensuring child welfare.
In exams, intermediate scrutiny often appears in hypotheticals involving gender discrimination or laws impacting social classifications, requiring students to analyze the government’s justifications and the relationship to the law’s effects.