Breaking Down the 3 Levels of Scrutiny in Constitutional Law

Breaking Down the 3 Levels of Scrutiny in Constitutional Law

Constitutional law is the foundation of a country’s legal system, shaping how governments function and safeguarding individual rights. In the United States, courts rely on a critical tool called judicial scrutiny to assess whether laws or government actions align with constitutional principles. This article breaks down the three levels of judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny—exploring how each is applied to determine the constitutionality of laws and actions.

What Is the Level of Scrutiny?

The level of scrutiny, a crucial legal framework used by courts, particularly in the United States, is of paramount importance for you, as it determines the constitutionality of laws, regulations, or government actions that affect constitutional rights. It refers to the degree of judicial review applied in cases where a government action is challenged as violating the Constitution, particularly rights under the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The level of scrutiny applied depends on the nature of the rights affected and the classification involved.

What Are the Three Levels of Scrutiny?

Level 1: Rational Basis Review

Rational basis review is not just a standard, it is the most lenient standard of judicial scrutiny. It is the go-to for laws or government actions not involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications, such as economic regulations. Its leniency is a defining feature.

The test for rational basis review is based on two key criteria: first, the law must have a legitimate government interest, and second, it must be rationally related to achieving that interest. This standard is commonly applied in cases involving non-suspect classifications, such as economic policies or social welfare programs. Examples include zoning laws or minimum wage regulations.

The burden of proof in rational basis review lies with the challenger, who must demonstrate that the law is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose. Courts generally defer to legislative judgment under this standard.

Despite its deferential nature, rational basis review has faced criticism. Critics argue that it can sometimes allow unjustified or arbitrary laws to stand. This potential for injustice is a significant concern with the low threshold required to meet the standard.

Level 2: Intermediate Scrutiny

Intermediate scrutiny is a middle-tier standard applied in cases involving quasi-suspect classifications, which are categories that are not considered suspect but are treated with a level of scrutiny higher than rational basis, such as gender or legitimacy, and certain fundamental rights, such as commercial speech.

To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must meet two criteria. First, it must serve an important government interest, and second, it must be substantially related to achieving that interest.

This standard is often applied in cases involving gender discrimination, such as United States v. Virginia (1996), and in certain First Amendment cases, including restrictions on commercial speech. The burden of proof lies with the government, which must demonstrate that the law or action meets the criteria of intermediate scrutiny. The court’s evaluation under this standard is not just more rigorous than rational basis review but significantly so, underscoring the seriousness of the legal process. It is less demanding than strict scrutiny, but the bar is still high.

However, intermediate scrutiny is not without criticism. Some legal scholars argue that its application can be inconsistent, leading to ambiguity in its implementation.

Level 3: Strict Scrutiny

The strict scrutiny standard, the pinnacle of judicial review, holds immense significance. It is invoked when laws or government actions impact fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race, religion, or national origin.

To satisfy the strict scrutiny test, a law must meet three criteria: (1) It must serve a compelling government interest, (2) it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and (3) it must use the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.

This standard is commonly applied in cases involving racial discrimination, such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and in fundamental rights cases, including those related to voting, marriage, and free speech.

Under the strict scrutiny standard, the government bears the burden of proof. It must convincingly demonstrate that the law or action satisfies all elements of the test. Courts generally presume such laws to be invalid unless proven otherwise, placing a significant responsibility on the government.

Strict scrutiny has its share of criticisms. It is often described as “fatal in fact” because laws rarely survive this level of review. However, there are instances where laws have successfully met the strict scrutiny test, such as laws prohibiting racial discrimination or laws regulating the time, place, and manner of free speech. Critics argue it grants too much power to the judiciary, enabling courts to invalidate legislative actions too readily.

Comparing the Levels of Scrutiny

Standard	Trigger	Test	Burden of Proof
Rational Basis	Non-suspect classifications	Legitimate interest; rational relationship	Challenger
Intermediate Scrutiny	Quasi-suspect classifications (e.g., gender)	Important interest; substantial relationship	Government
Strict Scrutiny	Suspect classifications or fundamental rights	Compelling interest; narrowly tailored; least restrictive means	Government

Why Levels of Scrutiny Matter

Levels of scrutiny serve as a critical framework in constitutional law, shaping the interplay between individual rights and governmental authority. By establishing a structured approach to judicial review, these standards ensure that fundamental freedoms—like speech and equal protection—are protected while enabling necessary government action. Below are the reasons why levels of security matter:

1. Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: Levels of scrutiny play a pivotal role in ensuring that our most cherished constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and equal protection, are robustly protected. Under strict scrutiny, a law that encroaches on these rights must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, providing a strong defense for our fundamental rights.

2. Upholding the Balance of Power: Levels of scrutiny are a cornerstone in maintaining a delicate balance between respecting legislative decisions and safeguarding individual liberties. For instance, rational basis review respects lawmakers’ decisions, requiring only that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. On the other hand, strict scrutiny places the onus on the government to justify the necessity of its actions, ensuring the protection of individual rights.

3. Ensuring Equal Protection: Levels of scrutiny are crucial in evaluating discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Strict scrutiny applies to laws that classify based on race or national origin. Intermediate scrutiny applies to classifications based on sex or gender. Rational basis applies to most other classifications, like economic status.

4. Guiding Judicial Consistency: Levels of scrutiny provide a framework for judges to analyze cases consistently. This prevents arbitrary decision-making and ensures that similar cases are treated alike.

5. Defining Governmental Boundaries: They delineate how the government can interfere with individual rights. For example, strict scrutiny limits governmental overreach in cases involving fundamental rights like voting or privacy.

6. Influencing Policy and Lawmaking: Legislators are aware of the levels of scrutiny and often craft laws to survive judicial review. For example, a law affecting free speech will be designed to withstand strict scrutiny by ensuring it addresses a compelling interest without being overly broad. However, some critics argue that the levels of scrutiny can be too rigid and may prevent necessary government action. They also point out that the standards for applying each level of scrutiny can be subjective, leading to inconsistent application in different cases.

How to Determine Which Level of Scrutiny Applies

Determining which level of scrutiny applies in a legal case, particularly in constitutional law, involves analyzing the type of law being challenged, the rights at stake, and the classification used by the law.

Identify the Nature of the Right or Classification

Understanding the nature of the right or classification is paramount in determining the level of scrutiny. When a law impacts a fundamental right, such as those related to speech, religion, voting, or privacy, it is typically subjected to stricter scrutiny. Similarly, strict scrutiny usually applies if a law discriminates based on a suspect classification like race or national origin. For classifications based on sex or legitimacy, intermediate scrutiny is invoked. In cases where the classification does not involve a suspect or quasi-suspect category, the law is generally reviewed under the rational basis standard.

Determine the Government Interest

To determine the government’s interest, evaluate the stated purpose behind enacting the law and assess whether the interest is compelling, necessary, or legitimate. The categorization of the government’s interest is crucial, as it often dictates the level of scrutiny applied. Laws addressing compelling interests generally face strict scrutiny, while those addressing necessary or legitimate interests are subject to intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review.

Look at Case Precedents

Case precedents play a significant role in guiding the level of scrutiny. Reviewing similar cases to determine which level of scrutiny was applied can provide a sense of reassurance and confidence in the legal process. Courts often follow precedent when dealing with similar rights or classifications.

Analyze the Context of the Law

To analyze the context of the law, examine its real-world effects, focusing on whether it discriminates against a specific group or imposes a burden on a fundamental right. Laws that impact fundamental rights or target vulnerable groups are more likely to be subjected to heightened scrutiny. For instance, a law that disproportionately affects a minority group or restricts a fundamental right in a significant way is more likely to be subjected to strict scrutiny. This reflects the court’s careful consideration of the potential for unequal treatment or significant infringements on protected liberties.

Consider Judicial Trends

Considering judicial trends is crucial in understanding the current legal landscape. Courts sometimes adjust scrutiny levels based on societal changes or evolving constitutional interpretations (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights have increasingly been subjected to intermediate scrutiny in some cases). Being aware of these trends can keep you up-to-date with the latest legal developments.

Critiques and Limitations of the Scrutiny Framework

The scrutiny framework has faced several critiques and limitations, including the following:

1. Lack of Clear Boundaries Between the Levels

The distinctions between the levels of scrutiny, particularly between intermediate and strict scrutiny, are often ambiguous. Courts sometimes blur these lines, leading to inconsistent applications. For example, in cases involving gender discrimination, intermediate scrutiny requires that the government action be “substantially related” to an “important government interest.” However, courts occasionally apply a standard closer to strict scrutiny without explicitly acknowledging the shift.

2. Over-reliance on Judicial Discretion

The framework gives judges significant discretion in determining which level of scrutiny applies, which can lead to accusations of judicial activism or inconsistency. For instance, determining whether a right is fundamental (triggering strict scrutiny) often involves subjective judgments about its importance.

3. Artificial Categorization of Rights and Interests

The framework creates a rigid hierarchy of rights, where some are deemed fundamental, and others are not, potentially undervaluing certain rights. For example, economic rights are typically analyzed under the rational basis test, often leading to diminished protection compared to rights like free speech or equal protection.

4. Potential for Government Deference in Rational Basis Review

Rational basis review is criticized for being overly deferential to the government, effectively allowing almost any law to pass as long as there is a conceivable legitimate purpose. In cases like Williamson v. Lee Optical, the Court upheld laws that seemed arbitrary, as the government was not required to provide actual evidence of a legitimate purpose.

5. Rigid Three-Tier Structure

The three-tier framework, which categorizes rights into fundamental, intermediate, and non-fundamental, does not account for the complexity and nuance of many cases, leading to outcomes that feel formulaic rather than responsive to the case’s specifics. This structure may not be flexible enough to accommodate emerging issues, such as those involving digital privacy or artificial intelligence, which may not fit neatly into one of the established levels of scrutiny.

6. Challenges in Applying Intermediate Scrutiny

Intermediate scrutiny, often applied in gender discrimination or commercial speech cases, has been criticized for its lack of precise standards, making it susceptible to inconsistent outcomes. Courts have struggled to consistently define a substantial relation or a vital interest, leading to varied results in gender discrimination cases.

7. Failure to Evolve with Societal Changes

The framework does not constantly adapt well to changing societal norms and values. Rights not considered fundamental decades ago, such as LGBTQ+ rights, have required creative judicial reasoning to receive higher scrutiny. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court did not explicitly rely on strict scrutiny for same-sex marriage but instead used a more flexible approach to achieve the desired result.

8. Excessive Focus on the Means-End Fit

The framework emphasizes the relationship between the law’s means and its intended ends, sometimes neglecting broader considerations, such as the law’s actual impact on marginalized groups. A law could pass intermediate scrutiny by being substantially related to its purpose but still perpetuate systemic inequities.

9. Strategic Judicial Manipulation

Critics argue that courts sometimes manipulate the framework to justify predetermined outcomes, applying a more stringent or lenient standard than warranted by precedent. In some equal protection cases, courts have applied rational basis with bite, a heightened form of rational basis review, to protect vulnerable groups without explicitly invoking a higher scrutiny level.

10. Inflexibility in Addressing Intersectional Discrimination

The framework struggles to address intersectional discrimination cases (e.g., race and gender combined) because it evaluates claims through single-axis categories. For example, a claim involving a Black woman alleging discrimination may be diluted if the court examines race and gender separately rather than together.

Final Thoughts

Judicial scrutiny serves as a cornerstone of constitutional law, providing a structured framework for evaluating the balance between government authority and individual rights. By distinguishing between rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny, courts can assess the constitutionality of laws and actions with precision and fairness. However, as this article highlights, the framework is not without its critiques and limitations, ranging from inconsistencies in application to challenges in addressing emerging societal issues and intersectional discrimination.

Despite these shortcomings, the scrutiny framework remains a vital tool for safeguarding fundamental rights, ensuring equal protection, and guiding legislative and judicial processes. Its role in shaping the legal landscape cannot be overstated, as it reflects society’s evolving values and priorities.

Ultimately, understanding the levels of scrutiny empowers individuals, policymakers, and legal professionals to navigate complex constitutional challenges with greater clarity. While the framework may require adjustments to address contemporary concerns, its foundational principles will continue to serve as a beacon for justice and fairness in a rapidly changing world.

Take Your Legal Team to the Next Level with RunSensible

Empower your legal team with tools to simplify workflows, enhance collaboration, and optimize performance. RunSensible provides a comprehensive suite of features for legal teams, including robust case management, contract lifecycle tracking, and automated compliance tools. With intuitive document management, seamless client communication, and real-time analytics, your team can focus on delivering results rather than juggling administrative tasks.

Whether you are managing contracts, handling client intake, or overseeing legal operations, RunSensible equips your team with the technology to work smarter, not harder. Explore how RunSensible’s all-in-one platform can revolutionize your legal department today and keep your organization ahead in a competitive legal landscape. Request a demo now and see how RunSensible can transform your team’s efficiency!

FAQs

1. Can a law fail all levels of scrutiny?

Yes, a law can fail under any level of scrutiny if it does not meet the required standard: under strict scrutiny, it would fail if it does not demonstrate a compelling interest; under intermediate scrutiny, it might fail if it is not substantially related to a vital interest; and under rational basis review, it could fail if it lacks any rational connection to a legitimate government interest.

2. Why is strict scrutiny considered the hardest to meet?

Strict scrutiny is the hardest to meet because it requires the government to justify a law with a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible. This ensures the law minimally infringes on individual rights.

3. Are these levels of scrutiny used only in the US constitutional law?

While these levels of scrutiny are primarily used in the US constitutional law, similar frameworks are found in other legal systems for balancing government powers against individual rights.

4. Is strict scrutiny always fatal to the law?

Not always, but it often is. This is known as “strict scrutiny being strict in theory but fatal in fact.” Laws rarely meet the high bar set by strict scrutiny.

5. How does the Equal Protection Clause relate to these levels?

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a common context for applying the levels of scrutiny. Courts use these standards to evaluate whether laws treat individuals or groups unfairly or unequally.