Legal Definitions - Strict scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard of review that courts use to evaluate whether a law or government action violates constitutional rights. When a court applies strict scrutiny, it presumes that the law is unconstitutional and places a heavy burden on the government to prove otherwise.

This high standard is typically triggered in two main situations:

• When a law infringes upon a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, or the right to travel.
• When a law involves a suspect classification, meaning it discriminates against a group based on characteristics like race, national origin, religion, or alienage (non-citizenship).

For a law to survive strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate two things:

1. It serves a compelling governmental interest: The government must show that the law addresses a truly vital and extremely important public need or goal, not just a desirable one.
2. It is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest: The government must prove that the law is specifically designed to achieve its compelling interest and does so in the least restrictive way possible. This means there aren't broader or less discriminatory alternatives that could achieve the same goal.

Here are some examples of when strict scrutiny might be applied:

• Example 1: Discrimination Based on National Origin

  Imagine a state passes a law requiring all individuals whose ancestry traces back to a specific foreign country to register with a special government database, citing national security concerns. A court would apply strict scrutiny because this law creates a suspect classification based on national origin. The government would have to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest (e.g., preventing a specific, imminent threat) and prove that the registration requirement is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This would mean showing there are no less discriminatory ways to address the security concern and that the law doesn't broadly target individuals who pose no threat. Such a law would face an extremely high bar to be deemed constitutional.

• Example 2: Restriction on Content-Based Speech

  Consider a city ordinance that prohibits all public demonstrations or speeches within a half-mile radius of the city hall, but only if the message is critical of the current city administration. This law would trigger strict scrutiny because it restricts a fundamental right—freedom of speech—and does so based on the content of the speech. The city would need to show a compelling governmental interest (e.g., preventing immediate violence or disruption of essential government functions) and that the half-mile ban is narrowly tailored. A blanket ban based on the message's content is highly unlikely to be considered narrowly tailored, as less restrictive alternatives (like time, place, and manner restrictions that don't consider content) are usually available to manage public gatherings.