Strict scrutiny is the toughest level of constitutional review, and the government usually must show a compelling reason for the law and a very close fit between the law and that reason.
Why It Matters
This standard matters because it heavily affects whether a challenged law will survive in court. When strict scrutiny applies, the government faces a much harder burden than under more deferential review standards.
Where It Appears
Strict scrutiny often appears in constitutional cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Courts use it during rights analysis to decide how demanding the review should be.
Practical Example
A law that restricts protected speech based on its content may be reviewed under strict scrutiny. The court would ask whether the government has a compelling interest and whether the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
How It Differs From Nearby Terms
Intermediate scrutiny is less demanding and usually asks whether the law is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Rational basis review is much more deferential and usually upholds a law if there is a reasonable basis for it.
Related Terms
Knowledge Check
- Why is strict scrutiny considered demanding? Because the government usually must prove a compelling interest and a very tight connection between the law and that interest.
- How does strict scrutiny compare with rational basis review? Strict scrutiny is far harder for the government to satisfy than rational basis review.