Also known as: midlevel standard of review · mid level standard of review · mid-level standards of review · intermediate scrutiny · intermediate standard of review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of judicial review positioned between rational basis and strict scrutiny. The government must demonstrate that the challenged classification serves an important governmental objective and that the means are substantially related to achieving that objective.
Mason McCarthy and his wife jointly own their residence. A state statute designates the husband as head of household and permits him to sell the home without his wife's consent. Mason executes the sale to a developer. His wife sues, claiming the statute violates equal protection. The court applies the mid-level standard and invalidates the statute because the gender classification lacks an important objective substantially advanced by the means chosen.
Miranda Morales operates a regional cable system. A federal rule requires her to carry certain local broadcast channels on her platform. The rule displaces some of her preferred programming. She challenges the mandate under the First Amendment. The court applies the mid-level standard, finds the rule advances important interests unrelated to speech suppression, and upholds it because the burden on speech is not substantially greater than necessary.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Musa Mensah applies to a state-supported military academy that admits only men. The academy defends the single-sex policy as necessary to preserve its distinctive educational environment. Mensah sues under the Equal Protection Clause. The court applies the mid-level standard, requires the state to supply an exceedingly persuasive justification, and strikes down the policy because the justification rests on overbroad gender stereotypes rather than a genuine important objective.
Melanie Morris seeks child support for her nonmarital child six years after birth. State law imposes a six-year limit on paternity actions for nonmarital children while allowing marital children to seek support indefinitely. Morris challenges the distinction. The court applies the mid-level standard and invalidates the statute because the classification based on illegitimacy is not substantially related to the state's interest in preventing stale claims.
Miles Montgomery owns copyrights in early twentieth-century musical works. A federal statute extends the term of existing copyrights by twenty years. Montgomery argues the extension exceeds Congress's power. The court applies the mid-level standard to the First Amendment claim, determines that the extension advances important interests in encouraging creation without burdening substantially more speech than necessary, and upholds the statute.
Ming Ma seeks federal registration of a trademark containing a racial slur. The Patent and Trademark Office refuses registration on the ground that the mark is disparaging. Ma challenges the refusal under the First Amendment. The court applies the mid-level standard, finds the denial is a content-based restriction that fails to advance an important interest unrelated to speech suppression in a narrowly tailored way, and invalidates the denial.
The government must show that the classification serves an important governmental objective and that the means are substantially related to achieving that objective. The justification must be genuine and may not rest on overbroad generalizations.
Gender classifications and classifications based on illegitimacy trigger the mid-level standard. Content-neutral regulations of speech are also evaluated under this standard.
Rational basis review would uphold a statute if it is rationally related to a legitimate interest. The mid-level standard requires an important objective and a substantial relationship between means and end. A statute granting husbands unilateral authority over jointly owned marital property fails the mid-level standard because it rests on gender stereotypes rather than a tailored important interest.
The regulation is upheld if it advances important interests unrelated to the suppression of speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary. A must-carry rule for cable operators that displaces only a modest amount of programming meets this test.
…holding attempted by RFRA. Even assuming RFRA would be interpreted in effect to mandate some lesser test, say, one equivalent to intermediate scrutiny, the statute nevertheless would require searching judicial scrutiny of state law with the attendant likelihood of invalidation. This is a considerable congressional intrusion into the…