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.
In order to pass an intermediate scrutiny test, "the challenged law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest". [4] According to Justice Rehnquist, the law aided in the prevention of teen pregnancy, which was a major goal of the state of California. [ 5 ]
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.
Breyer based his finding not on a strict scrutiny test that the plurality had used, but on a "proportionality" or "intermediate scrutiny test". [26] This test examines "whether the statute works speech-related harm that is out of proportion to its justifications."
The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services ...
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 ...
The case was heard by the Supreme Court on January 15, 2025. Besides the parties to the case, the Biden administration was given time to present arguments challenging the Fifth Circuit's ruling, neither in support or opposition to the law, but to argue the Fifth should have evaluated the law under strict scrutiny. [3]
Applying intermediate scrutiny, [11] the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat of harm to minors. [10]