Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional requirement that a law or regulation advancing an important or compelling governmental interest must fit that interest with precision and without unnecessary breadth. The fit is assessed by examining whether the measure reaches no farther than necessary to achieve the stated objective and whether less restrictive alternatives would suffice.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Minority Contractor Set-Aside
The city of Riverton enacted an ordinance reserving 30 percent of public construction contracts for businesses owned by members of designated racial minorities. Cade Carpenter, a non-minority contractor, challenged the ordinance after losing a bid. The court found that while remedying identified past discrimination in the local construction industry could be a compelling interest, the rigid numerical set-aside reached beyond the specific instances of discrimination shown in the record.
Marriage Permission Requirement
Wisconsin required any resident with unpaid child-support obligations to obtain a court order before marrying. Christian Coleman, who owed arrears from a prior relationship, was denied a marriage license. The court held that the statute significantly interfered with the fundamental right to marry and swept too broadly by applying to all noncustodial parents regardless of their ability to pay or the welfare needs of the children involved.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Casebooks
Clear-and-Convincing Evidence Rule
Missouri required clear and convincing evidence of a patient's prior wishes before allowing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from an incompetent person. Nancy Cruzan’s parents sought to discontinue her feeding tube after a car accident left her in a persistent vegetative state. The Court examined whether the evidentiary standard was closely tailored to the state’s interest in preserving life without imposing an undue burden on the exercise of a fundamental liberty interest.
Juvenile Death Penalty Ban
Missouri imposed the death penalty on offenders who committed murder at age seventeen. Christopher Simmons challenged his sentence after being convicted of a capital crime committed as a juvenile. The Court assessed whether the categorical prohibition on executing juveniles under eighteen was closely tailored to the state’s interest in retribution and deterrence given juveniles’ reduced culpability.
Federal Contractor Preferences
A federal program awarded additional compensation to prime contractors who hired subcontractors owned by members of specified racial minorities. Adarand Constructors, a non-minority firm, lost a bid on a highway project because of the preference. The Court required the government to demonstrate that the racial classification was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest in remedying identified past discrimination in the industry.
Abortion Clinic Regulations
Texas required abortion facilities to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and mandated that physicians obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Whole Woman’s Health operated several clinics that could not comply without substantial expense. The Court evaluated whether the requirements were closely tailored to protecting maternal health or instead imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What level of scrutiny requires a law to be closely tailored to a governmental interest?+
Strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny both demand close tailoring. Strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications and burdens on fundamental rights. Intermediate scrutiny applies to gender classifications. In each setting the government must show that the means chosen advance the asserted interest without unnecessary breadth.
Supporting sources
How does a court determine whether a measure is closely tailored?+
A court examines whether the law reaches no farther than necessary to achieve the stated objective and whether less restrictive alternatives would serve the interest equally well. Evidence that the government tolerates comparable conduct that undermines the interest indicates the measure is not closely tailored.
Supporting sources
Does close tailoring require the least restrictive means?+
In some contexts, such as content-neutral time-place-manner restrictions, the regulation need only promote the interest more effectively than its absence. The least restrictive means is not required. In strict-scrutiny settings, however, the government must show that no less restrictive alternative would achieve the compelling interest.
Supporting sources
539 U.S. 558 (2003)Constitutional Law
…hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights…