Editing Strict scrutiny (section)

{{Short description|Standard of judicial review in US constitutional law}}
{{About|the principle in United States constitutional law|the podcast|Strict Scrutiny}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2024}} {{Use American English|date=January 2024}}
{{United States constitutional law}}
In [[United States constitutional law|U.S. constitutional law]], when a law infringes upon a fundamental [[constitutional right]], the court may apply the '''strict scrutiny''' standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "[[Government interest|compelling state interest]]". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of [[judicial review in the United States]] and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that [[Us courts|US courts]] use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are [[rational basis review]] and exacting or [[intermediate scrutiny]]. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in [[United States v. Carolene Products Co.#Footnote Four|Footnote 4]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision in ''[[United States v. Carolene Products Co.]]'' (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of [[New Deal]] legislation. One of the most notable cases in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions constitutional was ''[[Korematsu v. United States]]'' (1944), since overruled, in which the Court upheld [[Internment of Japanese Americans|the forced relocation]] of [[Japanese American]]s in internment camps during [[World War II]]. Another example is the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|D.C. Circuit Court]]'s 2007 ruling in ''[[Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach|Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach]]'' that compelling government interest was demonstrated in the restriction of unapproved [[prescription drug]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |volume=20 |issue=2 |journal=Journal of Law & Health |pages=309|date=2006–2007|title=Restricting Access to Unapproved Drugs: A Compelling Government Interest|last=Currie |first=Peter M. |url=https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/jlh/vol20/iss2/7/ |access-date=2023-07-29}}</ref>

The [[Burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] falls on the state in cases that require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, but not the rational basis.