Also known as:strict scrutiny · strict scrutiny standard · compelling interest · compelling governmental interest · strict scrutiny test · compelling interest test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of judicial review under which a challenged law or classification survives only if the government proves it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The standard places the burden on the government to justify the restriction with evidence rather than speculation.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Santeria Ritual Ordinance Challenged
Santiago Sanchez, a Santeria priest, faces prosecution under a city ban on animal sacrifice that singles out his religion's practices. He argues the ordinance suppresses his faith without evidence that less restrictive measures would fail to protect public health. The court applies the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard and invalidates the law because the city cannot demonstrate necessity.
Minority Contractor Set-Aside Program
Sydney Santos, owner of a nonminority construction firm, sues after losing a city contract reserved for minority bidders. The program rests only on general assertions of past societal discrimination rather than specific findings of discrimination by the city. The court applies the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard and strikes down the set-aside for lack of narrow tailoring to identified past wrongs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Hornbooks
Foster Agency Religious Exemption
Seth Shapiro runs a religious foster agency that declines to certify same-sex couples on faith grounds. City officials grant individualized exemptions to secular agencies but refuse one to Shapiro's group. The court applies the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard and holds the policy unenforceable because the city cannot show narrow tailoring.
Internet Speech Restriction Review
Steven Silva operates an online forum that posts material barred by a federal statute aimed at protecting minors. He challenges the law as overbroad. The court applies the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard and invalidates the statute because less speech-restrictive alternatives exist to achieve the government's goal.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Abortion Regulation Challenge
Solomon Silver, a physician, seeks to enjoin a state law imposing spousal notification before an abortion. The restriction burdens a woman's decision whether to terminate a pregnancy. The court applies the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard and finds the requirement unconstitutional because it is not necessary to protect any compelling state interest.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)
Zoning Decision Racial Impact
Sebastian Santos, a developer, challenges a village zoning denial that blocks integrated housing. Evidence shows the decision was motivated by racial animus rather than neutral concerns. The court applies the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard and invalidates the action because the village cannot prove a compelling interest free of discriminatory purpose.
Arlington Heights, Village of v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977), on remand 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir.1977)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a racial classification in a government benefit program trigger the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard?+
A facial racial classification in a state benefit program, such as higher rebates awarded solely by race, is subject to strict scrutiny. The state must prove a compelling interest, typically remedying its own identified past discrimination, and show narrow tailoring. Absent such justification the classification violates equal protection.
Does conditioning restoration of voting rights on sterilization trigger strict scrutiny?+
Yes. The right to procreate is fundamental. A state may not condition restoration of civic rights on permanent sterilization because the scheme directly burdens a core liberty interest. The program therefore triggers strict scrutiny and fails unless narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
What evidentiary showing is required to uphold a race-based affirmative action program under the strict scrutiny-compelling interest standard?+
The program must rest on a strong basis in evidence of specific past discrimination by the governmental actor itself. General societal discrimination is insufficient. The set-aside must also be narrowly tailored to the identified discrimination in the relevant industry and jurisdiction.
410 U.S. 113 (1973)Constitutional Law
…way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no compelling interest whatsoever in regulating abortion or, in any event, that it has no compelling interest until the point of viability is reached, are unpersuasive. As noted above, a State may properly assert…