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.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. [1]
The petitioner argued that the statutory rape law discriminated based on gender and was unconstitutional. The court ruled that this differentiation passes intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because it serves an important state goal, stating that sexual intercourse entails a higher risk for women than men. Thus, the court ...
Boren [13] which introduced the standard of intermediate scrutiny for gender-based discrimination. Under this standard, states must demonstrate that any gender-based law serves an important government interest and is substantially related to achieving that interest. [14]
When intermediate scrutiny is involved, the courts are more likely to oppose the discriminatory law when compared to a rational basis review particularly if a law is based on gender. However, a court will likely uphold a discriminatory law under intermediate scrutiny if the law has an exceedingly persuasive justification and applies to real ...
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 ...
Reed was the first major Supreme Court case that addressed that discrimination based on gender was unconstitutional because it denies equal protection. The director for the ACLU, Mel Wulf , and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote Sally Reed's brief.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case [1] [2] [3] concerning same-sex marriage.The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.