Constitutional Law · Intermediate Scrutiny
Clear answer to: Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Intermediate Scrutiny in Constitutional Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.
In cases applying intermediate scrutiny, the burden of proof typically lies with the government. The government must demonstrate that the law or policy in question serves an important governmental interest and is substantially related to that interest.
Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used primarily in cases involving classifications based on gender or legitimacy. Under this standard, the burden of proof is placed on the government to justify the law or policy being challenged. This means that the government must show that the law serves an important government interest and that there is a substantial relationship between the law and the interest it seeks to advance.
This contrasts with strict scrutiny, where the burden is heavier on the government, requiring a compelling interest to justify the law, and with rational basis review, where the burden is on the challenger to show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Thus, intermediate scrutiny occupies a middle ground, requiring the government to provide sufficient justification without needing it to rise to the heightened bar of compelling interests.
In practice, courts will assess both the importance of the governmental interest and the means employed to achieve that interest. A law that fails to meet this standard may be struck down as unconstitutional. Cases that reflect this scrutiny often involve laws that discriminate based on gender or other quasi-suspect classifications, requiring careful judicial balancing of interests.
For example, laws pertaining to military service and gender, or regulations affecting marital rights based on legitimacy, frequently invoke this standard, prompting a detailed inquiry into both the justification offered by the government and the relationship of the means to the ends sought to be achieved.
Consider a state law that allows only men to be drafted into the military. Under intermediate scrutiny, the state would need to prove that this law serves an important governmental interest and that restricting the draft to men is substantially related to achieving that interest.
Students should be prepared to discuss the burden of proof in intermediate scrutiny as it is often tested in exam essays involving gender discrimination or similar classifications.