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 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 ...
In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or ...
The plaintiffs claimed that the law's restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny—the highest standard of review that a court can apply to an action, reserved for potential burdens on ...
Former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) (L) the President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be Attorney General walks alongside Vice President-elect JD Vance (R) as they arrive for meetings with Senators ...
Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous).
President-elect Donald Trump's pick for the director of national intelligence, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, has little experience working with the nation's spy agencies and a long track record of ...
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's scheme for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague.