Legal Definitions - intermediate casing

Intermediate scrutiny is a legal standard that courts use to evaluate whether certain government laws or actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This standard is a middle ground, less demanding than "strict scrutiny" but more rigorous than "rational-basis review."

Courts apply intermediate scrutiny when a law differentiates between groups of people based on characteristics that are considered "quasi-suspect classifications," such as gender or whether a child was born to married parents (legitimacy). For a law to be upheld under this standard, the government must demonstrate two key things:

• The classification serves an important governmental objective. This means the government must have a significant and legitimate reason for creating the distinction.
• The classification is substantially related to achieving that objective. This requires a strong, direct connection between the way the law differentiates between groups and the important goal the government is trying to achieve. The fit does not need to be perfect, but it must be more than merely reasonable.

Here are some examples of how intermediate scrutiny might be applied:

• Example 1 (Gender-based classification): A state university implements a scholarship program exclusively for women pursuing degrees in engineering, citing a long-standing underrepresentation of women in the field and a desire to promote diversity in STEM professions. A male student challenges the program, arguing it discriminates based on gender.

  How it illustrates the term: The court would apply intermediate scrutiny because the program makes a classification based on gender. The university would need to show that promoting diversity and addressing historical underrepresentation in engineering is an important governmental objective. Then, it would need to demonstrate that offering scholarships exclusively to women is substantially related to achieving that objective, perhaps by presenting data on the significant disparity and showing how the program directly helps to close that gap.

• Example 2 (Legitimacy-based classification): A state law dictates that children born within a marriage automatically inherit from their father, but children born outside of marriage must establish paternity through a court order within one year of the father's death to claim inheritance rights. A child born outside of marriage misses the deadline due to lack of awareness and challenges the law.

  How it illustrates the term: This law creates a classification based on legitimacy (whether a child was born to married parents). The state might argue that its objective of ensuring orderly estate administration and preventing fraudulent claims is an important governmental objective. However, the court would then examine whether requiring children born outside of marriage to prove paternity within such a strict, short timeframe is substantially related to these objectives, or if it places an unnecessary and unfair burden that is not truly essential to the state's goals.

• Example 3 (Gender-based classification in public service): A city ordinance requires only men between the ages of 18 and 35 to register for a mandatory local emergency preparedness volunteer corps, stating that the roles require significant physical strength. A woman challenges the ordinance, arguing it excludes her based on gender.

  How it illustrates the term: The ordinance classifies individuals based on gender, triggering intermediate scrutiny. The city's objective of ensuring a capable and prepared emergency response team is undoubtedly an important governmental objective. However, the court would then assess whether requiring only men to register is substantially related to achieving that objective. If the true concern is physical strength, a gender-neutral physical fitness test would likely be a more substantially related means than an outright gender exclusion, potentially leading the court to strike down the ordinance.