AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Intermediate scrutiny test3/16/2023 ![]() The substantial governmental interest test is a part of the intermediate scrutiny analysis in First Amendment law. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook, used with permission from the Associated Press) ![]() In this photo, Mitch Snyder, left, leader of Community for Creative Non-Violence, takes part in a demonstration for the homeless in Washington in 1988. The Court ruled that the ban furthered a substantial government interest in protecting parks for the enjoyment of millions of people. An example of this substantial government interest is found in a case involving Community for Creative Non-Violence that challenged a ban on camping in Lafayette Park across from the White House. With respect to the prediction of the decisions of Justices Ginsburg and Souter, little information from which a prediction could be made was available.If a law infringing upon First Amendment rights is content-neutral, the courts may uphold the law if there is a "substantial government interest" in the activity that the law seeks to prohibit. Other justices, such as Justices Breyer and Thomas, had decided affirmative action cases when they held other judicial positions or had written on this topic. Some justices, such as Justices O'Connor and Scalia, had written extensively on affirmative action. The information upon which the predictions were based varied from justice to justice. In my comment in the March, 1995 issue of the Tulane Law Review, the aim was to predict how each justice of the Supreme Court would evaluate the affirmative action program at issue in Adarand. The primary question in Adarand is whether intermediate or strict scrutiny should be applied to an affirmative action program created by the federal government. Finally, under the strict scrutiny test, the court examines the disputed provision to determine whether it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. When intermediate scrutiny is applied, the court determines whether the law at issue has a substantial relationship to an important governmental interest. When the court applies the rational basis test, the statute will generally be upheld unless there is no rational relationship between the means used and a legitimate legislative objective. In equal protection jurisprudence, there are three tiers of scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate, and strict scrutiny. The threshold issue in determining the constitutionality of affirmative action programs is whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies to such schemes. Yet, the state of the law remains unclear. In examining affirmative action programs, this Comment will refer to legislation or judicial decrees that create group remedies by considering characteristics of disadvantage.ĭuring the past quarter-century, the constitutionality of affirmative action remedies has been consistently litigated. In its more narrow sense, affirmative action includes programs which redress past wrongful discrimination and its present effects through the allocation of opportunities on the basis of racial or gender characteristics. A broad definition of affirmative action encompasses any positive steps taken to improve the status of disadvantaged persons. The term “affirmative action” has a variety of connotations. This Comment compares predictions which this author made in the March, 1995 issue of the Tulane Law Review to the June, 1995 decision of the Supreme Court. Predictable changes in the law, which appear to be strongly significant, were announced however, questions as to their actual effect remain. Pena, in which it explained the current status of the law with regards to affirmative action. On June 14, 1995, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |