Intermediate Scrutiny under Due Process – are the means employed substantially related to the accomplishment of an important governmental interest? The term “narrowly tailored” is commonly used in place of “substantially related.” Example of Intermediate Scrutiny Standard.Intermediate Scrutiny under Equal Protection – is the use of a classification substantially related to accomplishing an important governmental interest? This standard does not require that the classification be absolutely necessary to accomplishing the objective.Narrow tailoring is not a requirement to use the least restrictive of all means available, but that the means are a close fit to the objective. Intermediate scrutiny requires the governmental body to prove its actions are necessary to further an important government interest, and that the means chosen to achieve that interest are narrowly tailored. A governmental body, such as the state legislature, is not required to actually state a reason for the new law, however, it is clear that this legislation is made for a legitimate government interest in protecting the people. Many citizens of the state are angry about the additional expense and hassle required to obtain these tests, and to make repairs to their vehicles, and have attempted to challenge the law. Additionally, if those older vehicles are sold to a new owner, they do not meet the requirements for grandfathering in, and must submit to the testing. The law grandfathers in vehicles manufactured prior to 1990, but only until January 1, five years from the date the law was enacted. The state legislature passed a law requiring all vehicles to pass a safety test, as well as an emissions test, prior to registration. These vehicles have caused a significant smog problem in many areas, and vehicle accidents caused by mechanical failures has risen dramatically in the last 10 years. North state has more than its fair share of old, unsafe vehicles travelling its roadways. Minimum Scrutiny under Due Process – are the means employed rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective? Example of Rational Basis Standard.Minimum Scrutiny under Equal Protection – is the use of a classification rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective?.To meet this level of analysis, a challenger need only prove that the means employed by the governmental body are not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. All levels of scrutiny under Equal Protection refer to suspect classifications for race, national origin, poverty, religion, and alien citizenship status.Īlso known as “minimum scrutiny,” the rational basis review is the most forgiving level of scrutiny.
There are basically three levels of scrutiny, or evaluation, that may be applied by the court to determine whether a legislative action or governmental policy is valid, and whether it unnecessarily violates the civil rights of a group of people. For strict scrutiny to be applied, a legislative body must have either violated a fundamental right through enactment of a law, or passed a law involving a suspect classification, including not only race and national origin, but also poverty, religion, and alien citizenship status.
This exacting level of review is only used to evaluate purposes that appear to be offensively prejudicial or discriminatory, for the purpose of bringing the issue to light, and to ensure equal rights under the law. The first two concepts targeted for examination included the issue of “suspect classifications,” and a clearer definition of “fundamental rights.” The standard of strict scrutiny was the resulting change to evaluation of laws and policy under the Equal Protection Clause.
Chief Justice Warren recognized a need to formulate a different standard for evaluation of certain critical matters brought before the Supreme Court.
0 kommentar(er)
