Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the free speech context, intermediate scrutiny is the test or standard of review that courts apply when analyzing content-neutral speech versus content-based speech. Content-based speech is reviewed under strict scrutiny in which courts evaluate the value of the subject matter or the content of the communication.
Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact" since popular perception is that most laws subjected to the standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time.
The higher levels of scrutiny are intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. [2] Heightened scrutiny is applied where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated. [1] In U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, the nature of the interest at issue determines the level of scrutiny applied by appellate ...
As the name implies, it is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny. [10] Other forms of intermediate scrutiny are applied in other contexts. For example, under the Free Speech Clause, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are subject to a form of intermediate scrutiny.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or the act must be both narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. If the governmental restriction restricts liberty in a manner that does not implicate a fundamental right, rational basis review is used, which determines whether a law or act is rationally ...
The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v.United States [5] and Korematsu v. United States. [6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, and religion as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.
Justice Scalia's lone dissent argued that the standard applied by the majority was closer to a strict scrutiny standard than the intermediate scrutiny standard applied to previous cases involving equal protection based on sex. Notably, however, the opinion for the Court eschewed either standard; its language did not comport with the "important ...
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]