Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must ...
Under a rational basis test, the burden of proof is on the challenger so laws are rarely overturned by a rational basis test. [39] There is also a middle level of scrutiny, called intermediate scrutiny, but it is used primarily in Equal Protection cases, rather than in Due Process cases: "The standards of intermediate scrutiny have yet to make ...
The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous). In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. [1] [2]
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 ...
Pursuant to the state constitution, the Georgia General Assembly has enacted legislation. Its session laws are published in the official Georgia Laws, [1] which in turn have been codified in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.). [1] The Code of Georgia Annotated is another, unofficial codification published by West. [1]
Under the Equal Protection Clause, when the law targets a "quasi-suspect" classification, such as gender, the courts apply intermediate scrutiny, which requires the law to be substantially related to an important government interest. As the name implies, it is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny. [10]
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.
[citation needed] That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in Craig v. Boren (1976). [88] The Supreme Court has been disinclined to extend full "suspect classification" status (thus making a law that categorizes on that basis subject to greater judicial scrutiny) for groups other than racial minorities and religious groups.