Here are certain cases guiding the application of intermediate scrutiny. The protected class for application of intermediate scrutiny included gender aspects, legitimacy of a child, first amendment issues. Since the beginning, courts have approached the intermediate scrutiny for the interest of protected classes. The fundamental aspects under the first amendment are freedom of speech, freedom of region, and expression, and it prohibited Congress from acting any contrary to these above rights. Fair Rights regarding religion, expression, petition filing are usually granted under the first amendments. Whenever a statute created violates the rights based on gender, legitimacy, or first amendment issues. The said law furthers such interest or substantially acts in a way to further the interest. Courts consider two primary factors, i.e., there is the involvement of a vital government law interest. When a state or federal government passes a law, it can be challenged by invoking intermediate scrutiny. To protect certain protected classes of people, intermediate scrutiny is invoked. In a way, it is a limitation on the action of the state or federal government. The court initiates the review with a quasi-suspect approach. However, the gist lies around legislation that negatively impacts the important rights of a larger group on application. All these scrutinies are similar with a bit of difference. Intermediate scrutiny is also known as a rational basis with a bite or heightened scrutiny. This law will not pass the intermediate scrutiny as the matter is discriminatory based on legitimacy and does not involve much state interest. For instance, a law requires a paternity suit after a child's birth. The state interest must be essential and genuine for passing the intermediate scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny was concerned for quasi-suspect matters. The law must be involving compelling state interest to pass the level of strict scrutiny. To pass strict scrutiny, the statute has to be abiding by the equal protection clause, and it is a more strengthening process than the rest scrutiny process. Strict scrutiny is the higher level of scrutiny for the statutes concerning fundamental rights. The burden of passing these scrutiny levels lies with the government. The rational basis test is nothing like the traditionally used one. US courts have adopted three levels of scrutiny test for determining the issues regarding constitutional validity, i.e., strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. Intermediate scrutiny dealt with matters regarding freedom of speech, religion, gender, or legitimacy discrimination. A middle level of scrutiny was adapted by courts called intermediate scrutiny. The rational scrutiny dealt with violations regarding racial and nationality discrimination. For violating fundamental rights, a higher level of the test was required, such as strict scrutiny. Traditionally rational basis tests were applied for review in discrimination other than race and national discrimination. Court applied those equal protection clauses on the classification based on race and national origin. Traditionally courts approved the legislation only if it served their legislative purpose. These clauses are aimed at protection against statutory discriminations over specific classifications. The fifteenth amendment included the same clause under due process for the action of the federal government. The fourteenth amendment to the USA constitution included equal protection clause for the state government to act accordingly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |