![]() ![]() Those three standards of review are: (1) rational basis review, a deferential standard, under which the presumption is that the government acted constitutionally, (2) intermediate scrutiny, a prudential standard, under which there is no presumption with respect to constitutionality and the inquiry turns on whether there is a good reason for the government's conduct, and (3) strict scrutiny, a rigorous and nondeferential standard, under which the presumption is that the government acted unconstitutionally. These three different sensibilities roughly track the three different standards of review, or levels/tiers of scrutiny, courts employ to determine whether governmental action violates equal protection. Should the judge presume that the California legislature acted properly and defer to its judgment and reasons for imposing higher taxes on red-car drivers? Should the judge instead ask, without presuming one way or another, whether the California legislature had a “good” reason for taxing red-car drivers more heavily than it taxes people who drive cars of other colors? Or should the judge presume that the legislature acted improperly-indeed, unconstitutionally-and rigorously examine the basis for the legislature's disparate treatment of red-car drivers? Were the case to land in court, the presiding judge would have to decide the level of scrutiny to apply in reviewing the California law. Therefore, the California legislature should not be able to treat red-car drivers differently by imposing on that group a higher level of taxation absent sufficient justification for doing so. Red-car drivers could sue the state arguing that the law in question violates their right to “equal protection.” The red-car drivers' theory would be that red-car drivers are part of the same group as (or at least similarly situated vis-à-vis) people who drive cars of other colors in relation to taxation. Suppose, for example, that the California Legislature passes a law that requires people who drive red cars to pay higher taxes than people who drive cars of other colors. Courts employ different standards of review, or different levels of scrutiny, to determine whether equal protection has been denied depending on the nature of the distinction on which the government is said to have relied. A starting point for understanding equal protection law is knowing that every time the government acts-whether by way of a policy, a practice, or a law-it is vulnerable to the claim that this state action violates a person's or a group's equal protection rights because it treats similarly situated people differently without sufficient justification. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. ![]() ![]() When people in law think about strict scrutiny, they have in mind a doctrinal regime that shapes various areas of constitutional law, including the U.S. Carbado, Strict Scrutiny & The Black Body, 69 UCLA Law Review 2 ( March, 2022) (338 Footnotes) ( Full Document) The burden of proof falls on the state in cases that require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, but not the rational basis.Excerpted From: Devon W. In another case, it has been held that restricting access to unapproved prescription drugs is a compelling government interest. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the forced relocation of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. One of the most notable cases in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions constitutional was Korematsu v. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. Supreme Court decision in United States v. The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States. ![]() The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. The standard is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |