Strict scrutiny

that the constitutionality of the law will be challenged. When examining if a law contradicts or violates the US Constitution, also known as judicial review, the courts have three scrutiny standards: rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. The nature of the interest determines the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. The level of scrutiny determines how a court will analyzing the law as well as who has the burden of proof. Rational basis review considers whether a law is "rationally related" to a government interest. It is the more lenient scrutiny test in which the challenger must prove the government does not have a legitimate interest or there is no reasonable or rational link between the interest and the law. In other words, the government simply needs a good reason to discriminate. The most common are age laws such as the minimum employment age which puts an end to child labor. The next level is the intermediate scrutiny test. For this test, the government must prove the law serve an important reason, and it is substantially related to achieving the purpose. This test is used when a law discriminates based on gender or sex. Lastly, the highest level of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, is applied whenever a “fundamental right” is being threatened by a law. Strict scrutiny requires the government to prove that there is a compelling state interest. This test is used when a law discriminates based on race, such as the Japanese internment camps after…

Affirmative action, by definition, is an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education. Using varying instruments and policies, Affirmative Action aims to help underrepresented groups have a better job opportunities or college admissions. Generations of people have been disadvantaged by institutionalized discrimination and one way to remedy this is to place a policy that evens out the playing field. There has been…

and its effect on an individual’s rights. The court normally finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." However, the Supreme Court has applied more stringent analysis in different cases. The Court will "strictly scrutinize" a case to make sure the case is being handled correctly. In order for a law or rule to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must show that the law or its implementation was meant to be discriminatory and that would…

against civil suits brought by victims, families, and municipalities devastated by gun violence. Plaintiffs who had suits pending against gun or ammunition manufacturers or dealers arising out of third party criminal conduct or unlawful behavior found their suits immediately dismissed. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits these “qualified civil actions” from being brought in any state or federal court. Only a claim that a court deems to fit one of six narrow…

First Amendment.” Knowing then, that the Free Exercise Clause must apply to the States, we must then test to see if Article 20 Section 2 of the Arizona State Constitution is in violation of the clause. This court has in the past, held that polygamy is not a protected religious practice. See e.g., Reynolds V United States. Reynolds, though, fails to meet a number of criteria for it to be considered applicable in this case. In Reynolds, the court held that religious duty was not a suitable…

the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable; giving Duane a plethora of legal tests as options to determine whether State University 's policy is facially constitutional. (Texas v. Johnson, 1989, 231) Because the first amendment 's protections have been triggered for Duane, the strict scrutiny standard must be applied. As maintained by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973), the…

Because of the violation of equal protection strict scrutiny should be used. If this is used, the university could prove that the use of race is a compelling state interest. The university would also have to provide information that using race is the only possible way that their goal of diversity can be reached. Because Fisher said her rights under the Fourteenth amendment were violated, the University of Texas should have evidence to prove why diversity is a compelling interest. They would…

Heffron is similar to our case, because both the regulation in Heffron and our ordinance place restrictions on where individuals are permitted to engage in solicitation. In determining the content neutrality of the regulation in Heffron, the court held that the restriction was content-neutral because it was not intended to silence one particular message and was not an attempt to regulate ideas because the regulation applied evenhandedly to all who wished to engage in solicitation, regardless of…

Understanding Levels of Scrutiny. When we are dealing with the three levels of scrutiny the most accurate way to think of the various levels would be that they are a means-end analysis which are applied to the discriminatory law. These levels of scrutiny are used to determine whether a law is constitutional under the “equal protection” clause. This was all put into place due to the case Brown v. Bd. Of Education U.S. 483 (1954) which was stating the different colors of race had to be separated…

inform a firm of an inadvertent disclosure when it can be reasonably determined. Therefore, it is likely that the court will rule for the return of the privileged documents. FACTS This is a case that involves Abby Whelan, a local citizen, and Speedy Motors, Inc. (Speedy), a manufacturer of golf carts. The following facts are furnished from the law office of Hull & Grant, P.A. on September 20th, 2016. The dispute at hand concerns the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents. On May 15,…