Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
To satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, the law or policy must: be justified by a compelling governmental interest . While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny", the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. [1]
An alternative to strict originalist theory is advocated by former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the Court's supporters of substantive due process rights. Breyer believes the justices need to look at cases in light of how their decisions will promote what he calls "active liberty", the Constitution's aim of promoting ...
This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness (either because the statute is a penal statute with criminal or quasi-criminal civil penalties, or because the interest invaded by the vague law is sufficiently fundamental to subject the statute to strict scrutiny by a court determining ...
In the United States, the concept of government interest arises especially when certain constitutional issues are before a court of law.Under US constitutional jurisprudence, arising from US Supreme Court decisions, the courts weigh the government's interest in a particular subject matter against the impact of restrictions being imposed on the individuals' rights and interests.
The two judges who applied “strict” scrutiny were saying, “we’re not watering down our First Amendment jurisprudence here,” our old friend David French says on today’s episode of ...
The Supreme Court case Korematsu v. U.S. in 1944 is widely known to have brought the first concerns revolving strict scrutiny and racial discrimination. However, it wasn't until Chicago v. Mosley in 1972 to have first coined the term "narrowly tailoring" when the restriction of rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution serves a compelling state ...
(2) such means are subject to strict scrutiny and must be tested by a standard more stringent than reasonableness (3) a school board's interest in providing minority faculty role models for its minority students in an attempt to alleviate the effects of societal discrimination is insufficient to justify racially discriminatory practices in the ...