John’s Law Review argues that the Equal Protection Clause should instead be applied to everyone equally, balancing the governmental and individual interest on a case-by-case basis. For example, Danielle Stefanucci from the St. Some scholars argue that alternative frameworks should be adopted instead of the complicated tiers of scrutiny model. 7 There are additional levels and subcategories, such as rational basis with bite and intermediate plus, which compound the confusion and ineffectiveness of the tiered structure. ![]() (1982)) 6 and non-arbitrary ( United States Department of Agriculture v. Finally, rational basis applies to any other classification, only requiring that the state interest is legitimate and the classification is rationally related ( Logan v. 5 These classifications must be substantially related to important governmental objectives and require exceedingly persuasive justification. Boren (1976) 4 and further defined in United States v. 3 Intermediate scrutiny applies to classifications based on gender, as established in Craig v. United States (1944), 2 and further defined in Johnson v. Classifications against race or “fundamental rights” trigger strict scrutiny, meaning that they must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest, established in Carolene Products, used in Korematsu v. (1938), which requires a “narrower scope” for issues concerning “discrete and insular minorities” or the “First ten Amendments.” 1 There are three main tiers of scrutiny: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review. The tiers of scrutiny originated in the unassuming but now legendary footnote 4 of United States v. To guide such decisions, the Supreme Court has developed the tiers of scrutiny jurisprudential framework, which evaluates whether governmental actions violate individuals’ equal rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court adjudicates many cases involving protections against identity-based classifications or against prohibitions on fundamental rights, such as those outlined in the Bill of Rights. Thus, the current tiers of scrutiny model is flawed because of its unclear application and because it does not protect equal rights against discrimination for all historically marginalized groups. Further, the tiers do not provide adequate support for all potential discrimination or classifications, specifically classifications based on gender or sexuality. ![]() The amorphous tiers themselves create confusion and ambiguity, leading to arguably flawed judgments. ![]() In theory, these leveled classifications provide the necessary additional constitutional protections for historically marginalized groups however, in practice, the tiers of scrutiny fall short of this ideal. These tiers apply different levels of judicial scrutiny to different types of classifications. In the United States legal system, classifications and fundamental rights are protected by the Supreme Court’s tiers of scrutiny model.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |