Legal Definitions - mid-level scrutiny

Mid-level scrutiny, also known as intermediate scrutiny, is a standard of judicial review that courts use to evaluate the constitutionality of certain laws or government actions. When a law is challenged under this standard, the government must demonstrate two things:

• First, the law or action must serve an important government interest. This means the government's objective behind the law must be significant and not merely a matter of convenience or preference.
• Second, the means chosen by the government to achieve that interest must be substantially related to that interest. This requires a close fit between the government's goal and the method it uses to achieve it, though not necessarily the least restrictive means possible.

This level of scrutiny is typically applied to classifications based on gender (sex) or legitimacy (children born outside of marriage), as these groups have historically faced discrimination but are not considered "suspect classes" in the same way as race or national origin, which trigger a higher standard called strict scrutiny.

Here are some examples illustrating how mid-level scrutiny might be applied:

• Example 1: Gender-Based Military Service Requirement

  Imagine a federal law that requires only men, and not women, to register for a potential military draft. If this law were challenged as unconstitutional gender discrimination, a court would apply mid-level scrutiny. The government would need to prove that maintaining a male-only draft serves an important government interest, such as ensuring national security or military readiness. Furthermore, it would have to show that excluding women from draft registration is substantially related to achieving that interest. The court would scrutinize whether the gender classification is genuinely necessary for the military's effectiveness or if it's based on outdated stereotypes.

• Example 2: Parental Leave Policy for State Employees

  Consider a state government policy that grants new mothers six weeks of paid parental leave but offers new fathers only two weeks of paid leave, arguing that mothers are primarily responsible for infant care. If a male state employee challenged this policy as discriminatory, a court would apply mid-level scrutiny. The state would need to demonstrate an important government interest in differentiating between mothers and fathers for parental leave, perhaps citing biological differences related to childbirth and recovery. However, it would also need to show that the specific six-week versus two-week distinction is substantially related to that interest, rather than being based on traditional gender roles that might not reflect modern family structures or the equal importance of both parents in childcare.

• Example 3: Inheritance Rights for Children Born Outside of Marriage

  Suppose 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 inherit. If a child born outside of marriage challenged this law, a court would apply mid-level scrutiny to this classification based on legitimacy. The state might argue an important government interest in the orderly administration of estates and preventing fraudulent claims. However, the court would then assess whether requiring children born outside of marriage to jump through additional, time-sensitive legal hoops is substantially related to these interests, or if it places an undue burden on a class of children who are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth.