What are the rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny tests?

[@vluckow]

This video would be significantly better if you provided real world examples of all three.

[@honorguard88]

Strict: race and national origin intermediate: gender, born out of wedlock, group has historically been discriminated against, group is "discrete" minority, possess highly visible/immutable trait, relatively powerless to protect themselves via political process, distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society Rational basis: everything else (age, economic regulation, mental disability, sexual preferences)

[@USLawEssentials]

Here is a link to examples: uslawessentials.com/cases-rational-i…-strict-scrutiny/

[@trumanhw]

​@@USLawEssentials If I may also point out: It was ambiguous if all three (LEGITIMATE, IMPORTANT & COMPELLING): • _are all simultaneously necessary?_ (If so, then "easy and hard" are just perspectives of the side you're on) -or- • If only one of the 3 are required: (then explaining _respective difficulty_ seems more of an aside). Had an _or_ been inserted between _legitimate, important & compelling_ I'd assume it was a trichotomy -vs- A basis by which every law can be attacked. Further, it's unclear whether you can use a lack of specific tailoring to challenge whether a _rational relationship_ exists (by defense) or If the state / gov can reject how overbroad the tailoring is because the relationship is rational. ? How do we know which doctrine regulates a law? • Strict Scrutiny • Intermediate Scrutiny • Rational Basis The "difficulty of each" ... • ♢♢ Narrowly tailored. (difficult) • 🟦 Substantial relationship (medium) • 🟢 Rational relationship (bunny slopes) But, that's Gov's perspective, not the defense or those challenging it. *YOUR SUMMARY DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB CLARIFYING* _The standards apply to every law._ As an utter layman (barely finished high school) and with all due deference that I'm _Donny on the spot:_ "out of my league" & interjecting to Walter Sobchak and his "pomeranian show dog" :-) ..... Had a preface like the following been explained, I'd enter the remainder with a superior frame of reference: Often, suits are prepared before Bills or Executive Orders pass the houses, in order to file suits the instant the President signs them in to law -- in anticipation of challenging under an aegis [that] the law or EO contains constitutional defect(s). Often such challenges are filed with a request that during the inevitable 'due process' delays, that the litigant is afforded relief while the motion is pending to avoid injuries to any Citizen's constitutional rights under 'injunctive relief' -- something often provided claimants in civil trials which are dismissed in pre-trial (or in an emergency hearing) and in the case of laws, where it is not a matter of competing constitutional rights by both parties, but only the claimant. Sometimes, whether the zeitgeist, media biases, members of the court or a court's entire political leanings have changed, in which previous SCOTUS rulings may be re-examined. Likewise, if no one merely foresaw potential constitutional infringements which could arise by a laws institution is later challenged, often by an individual suspected of violating the statute who's appealed the law's constitutionality. Heller, Miranda Roe v Wade Graham v Connor ... & virtually every single EO Trump attempted instituting.

[@slepok]

I'm glad to see your updates again. :) Very good channel! Greetings from Moscow (Russia).

[@USLawEssentials]

Thanks very much!

[@erikaalatorre2172]

Do basic pleadings of a case have discovery requests? No right? They have a complaint and answer, and counterclaims.

[@USLawEssentials]

I agree with you. uslawessentials.com/major-stages-civil-litigation/

[@BrickWilbur2020]

So does the court apply all three tests to see 1 or all fail? How many, or which need to fail for a law to be invalid??

[@USLawEssentials]

The Court will usually choose one test that it believes is most appropriate to the circumstances. You can see examples here uslawessentials.com/cases-rational-intermediate-strict-scrutiny/ For example, a restriction on speech at a certain time and place might get intermediate scrutiny (eg don't yell at night when people need their sleep) Most laws for safety would get rational basis (e.g.goofy person insists he has a Constitutional right to perform surgery without a license or to drive an unsafe vehicle). A court will often also explain why it chose one test over another if there is a dispute as to which one should apply. Hope that helps and thanks for watching.

[@anzatzi]

what is the basis of these tests?

[@USLawEssentials]

They were created by the courts.

[@erikaalatorre2172]

A member of an exclusive private country club is caught stealing another member's golf clubs. Prior to deciding whether to terminate the member's membership what should happen? The club must provide the member with a due process by giving the member notice and an opportunity to respond, OR the club must provide the member with a rational basis for the decision,. OR the club must provide the member equal protection that ensures that the member is treated fairly OR does the club not have to provide the member any due process because it is a private club? PLS HELP THANKS! :)

[@USLawEssentials]

Ah, you got this. What do you think?

[@erikaalatorre2172]

USLawEssentials ah! I think.... uhm. The club must provide a rational basis for the decision? The private part throws me off...

[@USLawEssentials]

It should throw you off...why do you think it might be important that the club is private?

[@erikaalatorre2172]

USLawEssentials I think their rights change when it comes to the court when it’s a public club vs. a private club.

[@USLawEssentials]

OK, continue the thought...

[@AstronomyGirl04]

Thank you! :-)

[@USLawEssentials]

Sure, thanks for watching. uslawessentials.com

[@erikaalatorre2172]

Helpful. But which test would the court do to see if it’s constitutional for a state university to require all students at a university to take a black history class ? I can’t choose one. Please help, thank you!!

[@erikaalatorre2172]

Wish there was some examples to base that idea off of this question

[@USLawEssentials]

Hi Erika, this is a very good question. I have an opinion but don't worry about what I think. If you look at the link to the website you'll see that depending on the risk to a person's rights, courts apply different tests: uslawessentials.com/cases-rational-intermediate-strict-scrutiny/ So...a student who opposes this mandatory course would argue for the strictest possible test - -strict scrutiny. But to convince the court to apply strict scrutiny she would have to show that a fundamental right is at risk, that the school is engaging in racial discrimination, something along those lines, right? What would that argument be? In response, the school would argue that no Constitutional right is at jeopardy, and even if there were some sort of Constitutional issue, then the rational basis test should apply. According to the school, what is the legitimate goal of the University and why is this mandatory course reasonably related to that goal? Think it through, pretend to be one side and then the other. If you are in a position to research research federal cases then you should look at cases in which parties challenge mandatory courses. There are at least two cases I can think of but I would not be surprised if there are others. Hope that helps.

[@erikaalatorre2172]

@@USLawEssentials Thank you so much!! Super helpful. But what if the court just wants to see if it is constitutional to require all students to take this class as a part of a graduation requirement? I feel like it all depends so I cannot come to the conclusion. Not really if a student opposes but rather if it is constitutional or not.

[@USLawEssentials]

Erika, courts in the US will not issue advisory opinions so a court will not "just want to see". The only way this issue would get to a court would be if someone challenged the course as unconstitutional. The person who challenges the law would need to have standing (please watch: kzbin.info/www/bejne/onvUgWRrd9aLrc0) and would probably be a student compelled to take the class who argues that he should not be required to take the course. At that point the very question you originally raised would be taken up by the judge. The judge would have to determine what test should be applied, if she were to agree that a Constitutional right was at risk. Does that make sense? I want to make sure I understand your question and that I am responding to what you are asking.

[@erikaalatorre2172]

@@USLawEssentials ohhhh got it, someone has to challenge that in order for the court to do a test. which test would the court use to see if it is unconstitutional or not? I guess my question is how am I suppose to know what test? Which test would the court apply? Rational Basis, Strict scrutiny, or intermediate?

[@chriscockrell9495]

A law or government activity is an interesting distinction. The activity is just the execution of the law, so that seems the same in some sense. Isn't all law legitimate, unless the public process of government wasn't followed, and is technically unjust? I find it interesting that a judge would be making value decisions around the importance of the law (legitimate, important, and compelling). That makes it rather difficult to be objective. I suppose that any new area of legal systems, or judicial precedents, will be biased in that their is little legislative input.