Introduction
Heightened scrutiny is a standard of judicial review employed by courts when evaluating the constitutionality of governmental actions that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications. This stringent level of review necessitates a more compelling justification from the government than the rational basis review applied in most other cases. The core principle behind heightened scrutiny is the protection of individual liberties and the prevention of discriminatory practices. Two primary forms of heightened scrutiny exist: intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Each form possesses distinct requirements and applies to different categories of cases. Understanding these distinctions is important for comprehending the complexities of constitutional law and the protection of fundamental rights.
Intermediate Scrutiny: Balancing Governmental Interests and Individual Rights
Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to demonstrate that the challenged law or policy is substantially related to an important governmental interest. This standard typically applies to classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. Courts employing intermediate scrutiny carefully weigh the government's asserted interest against the burden imposed on the individual or group affected by the law. A classic example involves sex-based classifications in military recruitment, where courts have examined whether such distinctions genuinely serve important governmental objectives related to national security and military effectiveness.
Strict Scrutiny: The Most Demanding Standard of Review
Strict scrutiny represents the most demanding level of judicial review. Under this standard, the government must prove that the challenged action is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Strict scrutiny applies to classifications based on race, national origin, or alienage, as well as to laws that infringe upon fundamental rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote. The "narrowly tailored" requirement mandates that the government employ the least restrictive means available to achieve its objective. The compelling governmental interest must be of utmost importance, such as protecting national security or preserving public order. The landmark case of Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), while ultimately upholding the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, demonstrates the application of strict scrutiny, albeit controversially.
Fundamental Rights and the Application of Heightened Scrutiny
Fundamental rights, deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions, often trigger heightened scrutiny when governmental actions threaten their exercise. These rights are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but are recognized by the Supreme Court as essential to individual liberty and autonomy. The right to marry, recognized in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), and the right to privacy, established in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), are examples of fundamental rights that, when infringed upon, necessitate heightened judicial scrutiny.
Suspect Classifications and the Triggering of Strict Scrutiny
Suspect classifications, based on characteristics such as race or national origin, automatically trigger strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has determined that these classifications are viewed as suspect due to their historical association with discrimination and prejudice. Laws that discriminate based on these classifications are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to rigorous judicial examination. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny to a suspect classification.
The Importance of Heightened Scrutiny in Protecting Individual Liberties
Heightened scrutiny plays an important role in safeguarding individual liberties and preventing governmental overreach. By demanding a higher level of justification from the government when it infringes upon fundamental rights or employs suspect classifications, the courts act as a critical check on governmental power. This rigorous review ensures that governmental actions are not arbitrary or discriminatory and that they serve legitimate and compelling purposes. The application of heightened scrutiny reflects a fundamental commitment to the principles of equality and individual autonomy enshrined in the Constitution.
Conclusion
Heightened scrutiny serves as a critical safeguard against governmental infringement upon fundamental rights and the perpetuation of discriminatory practices. The application of intermediate or strict scrutiny, determined by the nature of the right or classification involved, demands rigorous justification from public authorities. From Korematsu to Obergefell, landmark cases demonstrate the complexities and ongoing evolution of heightened scrutiny in constitutional law. The distinct requirements of each level of scrutiny emphasize the judiciary's commitment to balancing governmental interests with the protection of individual liberties, a principle central to the American constitutional framework. Through its application, heightened scrutiny ensures that governmental actions are subject to careful judicial examination and follow the fundamental principles of equality and individual autonomy.
