Strict scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the most demanding standard of judicial review in U.S. constitutional law. It generally requires the government to prove that a challenged policy serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it.

Compelling government interest: A governmental objective of the highest order, required to justify certain burdens on constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny requires the government to identify an objective this weighty.
Equal Protection Clause: The Fourteenth Amendment provision requiring states to provide equal protection of the laws. Strict scrutiny reviews certain government classifications challenged under equal protection.
Rational basis review: A deferential standard asking whether government action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Unlike strict scrutiny, it places little burden on the government to justify ordinary classifications.
Carolene Products footnote four: A 1938 Supreme Court footnote suggesting heightened judicial attention for rights, political processes, and discrete minorities. It helped shape the idea that some constitutional claims warrant more searching review.
Strict scrutiny is not always fatal: The proposition that a law can survive strict scrutiny when the government satisfies its demanding requirements. The test is stringent, but its application does not make invalidation automatic.
Narrow tailoring: A requirement that a policy fit its legitimate objective closely and avoid unnecessary burdens or overbreadth. The government must show its chosen means are closely fitted to its compelling interest.
Racial classification: A government distinction that assigns people different treatment based on race. Government racial classifications generally trigger strict scrutiny under equal protection doctrine.
Intermediate scrutiny: A standard requiring an important government objective and a substantial relationship between that objective and the challenged classification. It demands more than rational basis review but generally less than strict scrutiny.
Korematsu v. United States: A 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the wartime exclusion order targeting Japanese Americans. The Court announced strict scrutiny for racial restrictions, yet upheld the policy in this case.
Compelling interest in national security: The question of when national security objectives qualify as compelling and justify rights restrictions. Security claims test how courts weigh asserted interests against strict scrutiny’s demands.

Linked from 20 pages