The United States Supreme Court has held that legislation or government activities discriminating based on race, national origin, religion, or alienage must satisfy this degree of scrutiny to withstand an argument that the policy breaches constitutional equality under the law. Strict Scrutiny: This is the most stringent level of scrutiny that courts may apply to government acts or legislation. Intermediate scrutiny, like extreme scrutiny, sets the burden of evidence on the government. A statute must meet the following requirements to pass intermediate scrutiny:īe directly relevant to reaching the goal. Intermediate Scrutiny: The next degree of judicial review of challenged statutes is less stringent than rigorous scrutiny. They will frequently find legislation with a good foundation if it had any possible, logical justification – even if the state never supplied one. There is no logical connection between that interest and the disputed statute.Ĭourts applying this standard are generally deferential to the government. There is no legitimate government stake in the legislation or policy or Under the reasonable basis test, the individual contesting the legislation (not the government) must demonstrate one of the following: Rational Basis Review: This is the lowest degree of examination applied to challenged legislation, and traditionally, little has been necessary for a statute to pass constitutional muster. With Equal Protection, all levels of examination of questionable categories for race, national origin, poverty, religion, and alien citizenship status. The court may use one of three degrees of scrutiny, or review, to decide if a legislative change or governmental policy is lawful and if it unduly infringes the civil rights of a group of persons. A legislature must have infringed a fundamental right by enacting legislation or passed a law containing a suspicious categorization, including race and nationality and poverty, faith, and foreign citizenship, to be subject to severe scrutiny. This stringent scrutiny is only applied to objectives that seem to be aggressively discriminatory to bring the matter to light and ensure equal rights under the law. The first two notions under consideration were "suspect categories'' and a better description of "basic rights." The outcome was a shift in the way there was the evaluation of the laws and policies under the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Warren saw the need to develop a new criterion for evaluating crucial issues before the Highest Court. The method almost gives no attention to the legislation or government policy against people based on their race or national origin. Before the "Warren Court" period of the Supreme Court, the Due Process Clause overturned state legislation that violated due process rights.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |