Intermediate scrutiny is a middle level of constitutional review in which the government usually must show that a law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Why It Matters
Intermediate scrutiny matters because many constitutional disputes do not fall at the easiest or hardest level of review. The outcome can depend on whether the court sees the law as a reasonably strong fit for a significant government objective.
Where It Appears
This standard appears in constitutional litigation when courts classify a claim as needing more than minimal review but less than strict scrutiny. It often comes up in equal protection and speech-related analysis.
Practical Example
A court reviewing a law under intermediate scrutiny asks whether the government has an important interest and whether the challenged rule is substantially related to advancing that interest.
How It Differs From Nearby Terms
Strict scrutiny asks for a compelling interest and a narrower fit. Rational basis review asks only whether the law has a reasonable connection to a legitimate governmental purpose. Intermediate scrutiny sits between those two standards.
Related Terms
Knowledge Check
- What makes intermediate scrutiny a middle-tier standard? It demands more justification than rational basis review but less than strict scrutiny.
- What does the government generally need to show? It generally must show that the law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.