Equal protection analysis uses different levels of scrutiny to evaluate laws that classify people. Strict scrutiny applies to race and fundamental rights, intermediate scrutiny to gender, and rational basis review to most other classifications. These levels determine how closely courts examine laws for discrimination.

The choice of scrutiny level depends on factors like history of discrimination, political power, and immutability of traits. Higher scrutiny makes laws harder to justify, while rational basis review is more deferential to legislators. This framework shapes how courts balance rights and policy goals.

Levels of Scrutiny in Equal Protection Analysis

Levels of equal protection scrutiny

• Strict scrutiny
  • Highest level of judicial review demands government prove law narrowly tailored to achieve compelling state interest
  • Applied to suspect classifications (race, national origin) or fundamental rights (voting, interstate travel)
  • Most laws fail this test placing heavy burden on government (Brown v. Board of Education)
• Intermediate scrutiny
  • Middle level review requires government show law substantially related to important government interest
  • Applied to quasi-suspect classifications like gender and illegitimacy
  • Allows more flexibility than strict scrutiny balancing rights with policy goals (United States v. Virginia)
• Rational basis review
  • Lowest level scrutiny requires law rationally related to legitimate government interest
  • Applied to all other classifications not covered by higher scrutiny levels
  • Most deferential to legislative decisions allows wide latitude in policymaking (FCC v. Beach Communications)

Application of scrutiny levels

• Race and national origin
  • Subject to strict scrutiny due to history of discrimination and immutability
  • Applies to racial segregation policies and affirmative action programs (Korematsu v. United States)
• Gender and sex
  • Intermediate scrutiny balances protection against discrimination with recognition of biological differences
  • Covers military draft policies and gender-based admission practices (Craig v. Boren)
• Age and disability
  • Generally rational basis review unless specific statutes apply heightened scrutiny
  • Allows flexibility for laws addressing unique needs of these groups (City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center)
• Sexual orientation
  • Evolving from rational basis to heightened scrutiny in recent cases
  • Reflects changing societal attitudes and recognition of discrimination (Obergefell v. Hodges)
• Alienage
  • Strict scrutiny for state laws limiting rights of non-citizens
  • Rational basis for federal laws due to plenary power over immigration (Graham v. Richardson)

Factors determining scrutiny level

• History of discrimination
  • Long-standing patterns of prejudice or unequal treatment increase scrutiny (Jim Crow laws)
• Political powerlessness
  • Group's limited ability to protect interests through political process (women's suffrage movement)
• Immutability of characteristic
  • Trait unchangeable or fundamental to identity increases protection (race, national origin)
• Relevance to legitimate state interests
  • Whether classification relates to ability to perform or contribute to society (gender-based job restrictions)
• Presence of fundamental rights
  • Laws impacting Court-recognized fundamental rights trigger strict scrutiny (right to marry, right to vote)

Implications of scrutiny levels

• Strict scrutiny
  • Most laws fail this test promoting protection of vulnerable groups
  • Heavy burden on government to justify classification (affirmative action programs)
  • Safeguards fundamental rights from government infringement (restrictions on voting rights)
• Intermediate scrutiny
  • Allows more flexibility than strict scrutiny for policy considerations
  • Requires substantial justification from government for gender-based distinctions
  • Balances protection of rights with legitimate policy goals (military service requirements)
• Rational basis review
  • Most deferential to legislative decisions upholding majority of laws
  • Allows government wide latitude in economic and social policymaking
  • May still strike down laws found arbitrary or irrational (Romer v. Evans)