Describe the tests or standards used to determine whether a law violates the equal protection clause.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary. If a law or action prevents some group of persons from exercising a fundamental right (such as one of the First Amendment rights), the law or action will be subject to the strict scrutiny standard. Under this standard, the law or action must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A law based on a suspect classification, such as race, is also subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, meaning that the law must be justified by a compelling state interest.?Because the Supreme Court had difficulty deciding how to judge cases in which men and women were treated differently, another test was developed-the intermediate scrutiny standard. Under this standard, also known as exacting scrutiny, laws based on gender classifications are permissible if they are "substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective." For example, a law punishing males but not females for statutory rape has been ruled valid by the courts. The reasoning is that there is an important governmental interest in preventing teenage pregnancy in those circumstances, and almost all of the harmful consequences of teenage pregnancies fall on young females. A law prohibiting the sale of beer to males under twenty-one years of age and to females under eighteen years would not be valid, however.?A third test used to decide whether a discriminatory law violates the equal protection clause is the rational basis test. This test is employed only when there is no classification-such as race or gender-that would require a higher level of scrutiny. When applying this test to a law that classifies or treats people or groups differently, the courts ask whether the discrimination is rational. In other words, is it a reasonable way to achieve a legitimate government objective? Few laws tested under the rational basis test-or the ordinary scrutiny standard, as it is also called-are found invalid, because few laws are truly unreasonable. A municipal ordinance that prohibits certain vendors from selling their wares in a particular area of the city, for example, will be upheld if the city can meet this rational basis test. The rational basis for the ordinance might be the city's legitimate interest in reducing traffic congestion in that particular area.