Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: When Can Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
Intermediate scrutiny is applied in cases involving discrimination based on quasi-suspect classifications, such as gender and illegitimacy, where the law must serve an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest.
Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of review used by courts to evaluate laws that discriminate based on certain classifications not deemed 'suspect' but still warrant more than mere rational basis review. This standard applies primarily to cases involving gender discrimination and laws affecting illegitimate children, where the courts require the government to demonstrate that the challenged law serves an 'important' governmental interest and that there is a 'substantial' relationship between the law and that interest.
The roots of intermediate scrutiny can be traced to cases like Craig v. Boren (1976), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law allowing women to purchase alcohol at a younger age than men was unconstitutional. The Court articulated that there must be "exceedingly persuasive justification" for gender discrimination, thus establishing the framework for intermediate scrutiny.
In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Court invalidated a law that favored men over women in the administration of estates, stating that discrimination based on sex violated the Equal Protection Clause. This case further exemplified the Court's willingness to apply intermediate scrutiny when gender-related classifications are involved.
Another significant case is United States v. Virginia (1996), which involved the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy. The Court declared this policy unconstitutional, emphasizing that the government must provide an exceptionally persuasive rationale for any discrimination based on gender.
Overall, while intermediate scrutiny does not require the rigorous strict scrutiny applicable to suspect classes such as race or national origin, it still mandates a significant level of justification from the government, thereby balancing rights and policy considerations in the judicial review process.
A state law that requires insurance companies to provide different rates for men and women might be subject to intermediate scrutiny. The legislature would need to demonstrate that the difference in rates serves an important governmental interest, such as actuarial data showing significant differences in risk, and that the differential treatment is substantially related to that interest.
Intermediate scrutiny is commonly tested on exams through hypothetical scenarios involving gender discrimination or cases with quasi-suspect classifications, requiring students to apply the three-prong test.