Strict scrutiny

classifications and tests help in cases involving race, ethnicity, and religion, gender, and economic status and age. They include the Suspect Classification and the Strict Scrutiny Test, the Quasi-Suspect Classifications and the Heightened Scrutiny Test, and the Rational Basis Test. To begin with, the suspect classification works alongside the strict scrutiny test. The suspect classification falls into play when a law is possibly considered unconstitutional because it categorizes a person based upon their race

origin, and the old version of this test did not look to the legitimacy of the state goal at hand. Through the Warren Court years, two areas were seen to require a higher standard of scrutiny rather than the rational basis test. First, the concept of "suspect classifications" developed as an area in which strict scrutiny was required. This included the classifications of race and national origin, and while it leaves room for other classifications subjected just to the rational basis test, no other classifications

of 2014, explores the impact Fisher III has on race-conscious admissions programs, and argues that Fisher III enhances the strict scrutiny analysis, especially when compared to Grutter. Moreover, she argues “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent meaningfully highlights one of the most pernicious flaws in the current Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which is that strict scrutiny standard encourages universities to make their admissions process opaque instead of transparent and that there are many benefits

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is considered by many to be the catchall amendment within the reconstruction amendments that passed not long after the Civil War. Its due process and especially the equal protection clause have single handily changed the course of American History for all eternity. I believe that there are several key issues that plague the way our highest court approaches matters of sexual orientation and other issues as well. In this document I intend to explore what

three different levels of scrutiny, depending on the classification in question; in descending order, these three are the Strict Scrutiny Test, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis test. The level of scrutiny depends on the group’s classification. “Depending upon the group whose right has been violated, the Court sets different standards of how closely it will scrutinize the law alleged to violate equal protection.” (Gateway to Democracy, p. 151) Strict Scrutiny is used immediately when involving

an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment. The record-keeping provision, anti-harassment provision, and the inquiry provisions are in clear violation of the First Amendment as they are content-based regulations of speech that fail strict scrutiny. However, the anti-discrimination provision of the law is constitutional as it does not regulate free speech. Syllabus: The Firearm Owner’s Privacy Act contains four provisions. The greatest problem with the three

court relating rational base review pursue to regulate whether a regulation is "realistically interrelated" to an "appropriate" supervision concern, whether actual or theoretical. The advanced stages of examination are midway scrutiny and strict examination. Delicate scrutiny is practical where a disbelieving classification is convoluted, or a central right is occupied. In U.S Federal Court jurisprudence, the natural surroundings of the interest at teething troubles defines

TO: Dr. Alisa Smith FROM: Drew Carff DATE: April 7, 2016 RE: Consideration of race in college admissions process – Fisher v. Texas FACTS Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian Texas resident, applied for admission to the University of Texas at Austin. She applied for the entering class of fall 2008. The University rejected her application. Fisher graduated from another university in May 2012. In 1997, Texas passed the Top Ten Percent Plan into law. The law guarantees admission to Texas residents that graduate

statute unconstitutional because of violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason why I believe that they did not apply sound reasoning in Reed v. Reed is because the level of scrutiny applied. The Supreme Court applied the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Commonly, when the Supreme Court applies the rational basis test to a law, the law passes because it can be proven that it is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest” . There was no precedent

Graham vs Florida, 2010 Justice Carusone concurring, This case presents an issue about the 8th amendment and the lack of specificity in the Constitution, specifically pertaining to minors. Graham was a minor at the time of the armed home robbery in the state of Florida. The Supreme Court has decided to revoke the punishment of life in prison without possibility of parole. This is because the majority of Supreme Judges believe that the 8th amendment is fundamental. “Excessive bail shall not be