Almost every law that comes under strict scrutiny has been reversed, and almost every law that has come under rational scrutiny has been upheld. The different levels of scrutiny define the different standards the state law must pass. For a law to pass strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored and least restrictive and the state must have a compelling state interest for its enactment. For a law to pass rational scrutiny, it must be rational (the law can be over-inclusive and under-inclusive) and the state has to show that it was accomplished legally. The state only has to show that the reason for its enactment is legitimate. The burden of proof also shifts from the defendant in rational scrutiny to the state in strict scrutiny.
Rational basis test for economic issues, strict scrutiny test for racial and fundamental liberty issues, and midlevel scrutiny for gender issues
strict scrutiny
The three types of discrimination scrutiny are rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. These levels are used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws that may discriminate against individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, or age.
Strict scrutiny is very critical observation or examination.
All of the above are true
Strict scrutiny
All of the above are true
strict scrutiny
strict scrutiny
Strict scrutiny
Korematsu v. United States
The US Supreme Court requires "heightened scrutiny" for death penalty appeals. Heightened scrutiny is an intermediate level of judicial review between "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis." To withstand the heightened scrutiny test, the law or policy must "further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.""The standard of review for an appeal from a capital murder conviction and death sentence is that of "heightened scrutiny"; all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the accused because what may be harmless error in a case with less at stake becomes reversible error when the penalty is death." Thorson v. State, 2007 WL 2446474 (Miss. 2007)