Also known as: heightened equal protection standards · heightened scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An intermediate standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause that requires a classification to be substantially related to an important governmental interest.
An intermediate standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause that requires a classification to be substantially related to an important governmental interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A strict standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause that requires a classification to be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A strict standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause that requires a classification to be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Heidi Henderson, an undocumented student, challenged a state law denying her enrollment in public school. The statute created a classification based on immigration status that affected access to education. The court applied the heightened equal protection standard and held the law unconstitutional because the classification was not substantially related to any substantial state interest.
Hannah Hughes applied to a state-supported military college that admitted only men. The admissions policy created an explicit gender classification. The court applied the heightened equal protection standard and required the state to show an exceedingly persuasive justification, which the policy failed to meet.
The heightened equal protection standard encompasses both intermediate scrutiny for quasi-suspect classes and strict scrutiny for suspect classes or fundamental rights. Excerpts confirm that gender classifications receive intermediate scrutiny while burdens on fundamental rights such as marital privacy receive strict scrutiny.
Supporting sources
Hyun Han and his wife sought contraceptive prescriptions at a state pharmacy that refused service to any customer listing a spouse as emergency contact. The pharmacy rule targeted married couples' intimate decisions. The court applied the heightened equal protection standard because the classification burdened the fundamental marital privacy right and struck down the rule.
Henry Hoffman, a member of a small religious group, faced a city ordinance banning ritual animal sacrifice. The law singled out religious conduct for prohibition while permitting similar secular activities. The court applied the heightened equal protection standard and invalidated the ordinance because it was not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Hakeem Harris, a law-abiding resident, challenged a city ban on possessing operable handguns in the home. The ordinance created a classification burdening the right to keep and bear arms. The court applied the heightened equal protection standard and held the ban unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Hiroshi Hasegawa, an inmate, requested a religious diet that prison officials refused to provide. The policy created a classification that burdened religious exercise. The court applied the heightened equal protection standard and required the prison to demonstrate that the denial was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.
A court applies the heightened equal protection standard when a classification burdens a suspect or quasi-suspect class or infringes a fundamental right. The primary authority shows that interference with marital privacy triggers this review because the Constitution protects a zone of privacy emanating from Bill of Rights guarantees.
Supporting sources
The classification is invalidated because the government cannot satisfy the required showing of substantial relation to an important interest or narrow tailoring to a compelling interest. The model answer in the essay question illustrates that denial of equal marital recognition triggers strict scrutiny and leads to a finding of unconstitutionality.
Supporting sources
…scrutiny under the doctrine of "substantive due process." Roe and Casey , of course, subjected the restriction of abortion to heightened scrutiny without even attempting to establish that the freedom to abort was rooted in this Nation's tradition. (2) Bowers , the Court says, has been subject to "substantial and continuing…