Also known as:heightened equal protection analyses · heightened scrutiny · equal protection scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of judicial review that demands the government demonstrate an important or compelling interest advanced by state action that is substantially related or narrowly tailored to that interest. The standard applies when a law burdens a fundamental right such as the zone of marital privacy. Courts apply this review instead of ordinary rational-basis scrutiny to guard against unjustified interference with protected liberties.
Sources & Authorities· 2 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Married Couple Denied Contraceptive Access
Hannah Hale and her husband, both state employees, applied for health-plan reimbursement of prescription contraceptives. The plan administrator, following state commission rules, denied coverage solely because the couple was married. Hannah sued, claiming the marital-status distinction triggered heightened equal protection analysis. The court applied the standard and struck down the exclusion because the state's interest in promoting larger families did not justify burdening the protected marital privacy interest.
Illegitimacy Classification in Inheritance
Harriet Hamilton's estate plan excluded her nonmarital child from any share. The child sued the estate administrator, arguing that the statutory bar on inheritance by children born outside marriage violated equal protection. The court subjected the classification to heightened equal protection analysis and invalidated the bar because the state offered no substantial justification for treating nonmarital children differently from marital children.
Trimble v. Gordon430 U.S. 762, 775 n.16 (1977)
Public Use Determination in Takings
Hyun Han owned waterfront property targeted for redevelopment by the city. The city claimed the taking served a public purpose by transferring the land to a private developer. Han challenged the action, asserting that the classification of his property for transfer triggered heightened equal protection analysis. The court applied the standard and required the city to show a substantial relationship between the taking and a legitimate public purpose.
Kelo, et al. v. City of New London545 U.S. 469, 503 (2005)
Education Access for Undocumented Children
Hope Howard, an undocumented resident, sought enrollment for her citizen children in the local public school after the district adopted a policy excluding households headed by undocumented parents. The family sued, alleging the policy denied equal protection. The court applied heightened equal protection analysis because the classification burdened citizen children's access to education and required the district to demonstrate a substantial relationship to an important state interest.
Plyler v. Doe457 U.S. 202, 231 (1982)
Religious Practice Targeted by Ordinance
Henry Hoffman operated a small religious congregation that performed animal sacrifice as part of its rituals. The city enacted an ordinance banning such practices while permitting other forms of animal slaughter. Hoffman challenged the ordinance under equal protection. The court applied heightened equal protection analysis because the law targeted a specific religious practice and required the city to show narrow tailoring to a compelling interest.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah508 U.S. 520, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 124 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1993)
Single-Sex Military Institute Admission
Hannah Hughes applied to the state-supported military institute that admitted only men. The institute rejected her application under its single-sex policy. Hughes sued, claiming the gender classification violated equal protection. The court applied heightened equal protection analysis and required the state to show an exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding women from the unique educational opportunity.
United States v. Virginia518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does a classification receive heightened equal protection analysis rather than rational basis review?+
Heightened analysis applies when the classification rests on a suspect or quasi-suspect trait such as race, national origin, or gender, or when the law burdens a fundamental right. The reviewing court then demands an important or compelling governmental interest and a close fit between the classification and that interest. Ordinary rational basis review applies to all other classifications.
Supporting sources
Does a facially neutral policy that produces a disparate racial impact automatically trigger heightened equal protection analysis?+
No. A facially neutral policy triggers heightened scrutiny only if the plaintiff proves that the government adopted or maintained the policy at least in part because of its adverse effect on a protected class. Disparate impact alone is insufficient without evidence of discriminatory purpose.
Supporting sources
What level of scrutiny applies to classifications based on transgender status?+
Many courts treat transgender status as a form of sex-based classification that warrants at least intermediate scrutiny under heightened equal protection analysis. Even under rational basis review, singling out transgender individuals for disfavored treatment without a legitimate purpose fails constitutional review.
Supporting sources
How does heightened equal protection analysis interact with the marital right to privacy?+
State action that singles out married persons for disadvantage in reproductive matters, such as denying contraceptive coverage only to married employees, burdens the zone of privacy surrounding marriage. Courts apply heightened scrutiny and require narrow tailoring to a compelling objective because the classification targets the protected marital relationship.
Supporting sources
heightened scrutiny
. Accordingly, we think that the correct
analysis
is that set forth by the plurality opinion in Webster . A woman's interest in having an abortion is a form of liberty protected by the Due…
analysis
of Labine is discussed throughout the remainder of this opinion. [^maj-13]: This purpose…
. See ante , at 136 (joint opinion of STEVENS and O'CONNOR, JJ.) ("[A] contribution limit involving even " significant interference"' with associational rights is nevertheless valid if it…