Virginia, however, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the parallel argument that if a race-specific marriage law applies equally to all affected races then heightened scrutiny is unnecessary. Yet the vast majority of courts have held that gender-specific marriage laws neither classify nor discriminate based on gender because the laws apply to both men and women, and thus are not subject to heightened scrutiny. Laws that classify or discriminate based on gender are generally subject to heightened scrutiny. To date, all courts that have applied heightened scrutiny have held same-sex marriage prohibitions to be unconstitutional, while courts applying rational basis review have often upheld such laws. The outcomes of these future legal challenges will be affected by the level of scrutiny that courts apply. In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent Windsor opinion, the focus of marriage equality litigation has returned to challenging state gender-specific marriage laws that make a couple's right to marry a function of their genders. Therefore, the state did not meet its BURDEN OF PROOF and the law was held unconstitutional.Embracing Loving: Trait-Specific Marriage Laws and Heightened ScrutinyĬhristopher R.
The Court held that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability, except in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, but the Texas law was not narrowly tailored to achieve this objective. Though the Court acknowledged that this was a legitimate interest, it held that the interest does not become compelling until that point in pregnancy when the fetus becomes "viable" (capable of "meaningful life outside the mother's womb"). The state of Texas sought to proscribe all abortions and claimed a compelling STATE INTEREST in protecting unborn human life. The Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and that this right "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Based on these grounds, the Court applied strict scrutiny. 2d 147 (1973), which invalidated state laws that prohibited ABORTION, illustrates the application of strict scrutiny. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. 2d 397 (1976), "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives." The heightened scrutiny test is used in cases involving matters of discrimination based on sex.
When employed, the RATIONAL BASIS TEST usually results in a court upholding the constitutionality of the law, because the test gives great deference to the legislative branch. It is used in cases where a plaintiff alleges that the legislature has made an ARBITRARY or irrational decision. The rational basis test is the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. The strict scrutiny standard is one of three employed by the courts in reviewing laws and government policies. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendment. A standard of JUDICIAL REVIEW for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
0 kommentar(er)
