Also known as: strict scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A demanding standard of judicial review that requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring before upholding a challenged law or policy. The standard applies to restrictions that significantly burden fundamental rights or employ suspect classifications.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Charlotte Chung's religious group performs animal sacrifices according to Santeria tradition. The city enacts an ordinance that singles out this practice while permitting comparable secular activities. A court applies closest scrutiny and invalidates the ordinance because the city cannot prove the measure is necessary to any compelling interest.
Camila Cervantes owns a construction firm that bids on city projects. The city reserves a percentage of contracts for minority-owned businesses based only on general societal discrimination. A court subjects the program to closest scrutiny and strikes it down for lack of a strong basis in evidence of specific past discrimination.
Colin Chambers runs a religious foster agency that declines to certify same-sex couples. The city allows case-by-case exemptions for secular agencies but refuses one for the religious agency. A court applies closest scrutiny because the policy is not generally applicable and requires the city to justify its refusal.
Chloe Chen seeks to register a trademark containing a critical reference to a political figure. The Patent Office refuses registration under a statutory bar on disparaging marks. A court subjects the refusal to closest scrutiny as a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech and invalidates the bar.
Connor Clark contributes to a candidate's campaign. A statute caps individual contributions at a modest amount. A court applies closest scrutiny to the limit but upholds it because the marginal burden on expression is justified by the government's interest in preventing corruption.
Christian Coleman proposes low-income housing in a suburb. Local officials reject the project after evidence shows racial animus motivated the decision. A court subjects the denial to closest scrutiny and requires the municipality to prove the action serves a compelling interest that cannot be achieved by race-neutral means.
Closest scrutiny applies when a law burdens fundamental rights such as political association or free exercise or employs a suspect classification such as race. Rational basis review governs only when the measure is neutral and generally applicable or affects neither fundamental rights nor suspect classes.
No. Although the standard is demanding, a measure can survive if the government proves a compelling interest and shows the means are narrowly tailored. Contribution limits have been upheld under closest scrutiny because the burden on expression was marginal and the anti-corruption interest was sufficient.
…law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples constituted a classification on the basis of sex and was therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the Hawaii Constitution. Baehr v. Lewin , 74 Haw. 530, 852 P. 2d 44. Although this decision did not mandate that same-sex marriage be allowed, some States were concerned by its…
…agree with the result reached by the Court but would rest the decision on the ground that the statute fails to satisfy the strict scrutiny test applicable to infringements of fundamental rights. The statute as applied to married couples is an arbitrary and unreasonable interference with the right of marital privacy.…
…Process Clause. IV For very similar reasons, the equal protection claim must fail, since it is not to be judged by the strict scrutiny
…urge us to hold that classifications based on illegitimacy are "suspect," so that any justifications must survive "strict scrutiny." We considered and rejected a similar argument last Term in Mathews v. Lucas , 427 U. S. 495 (1976). As we recognized in Lucas , illegitimacy is analogous in many respects to the…
…v. Hialeah , 508 U. S. 520 (1993), among other cases, appellees offer an additional reason why, in their view, the CDA fails strict scrutiny
Closest scrutiny demands a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring. Intermediate scrutiny requires only an important interest and substantial relation. Gender classifications typically receive intermediate scrutiny while race classifications and burdens on fundamental rights receive closest scrutiny.
The government must identify a concrete and compelling interest such as preventing corruption or protecting public safety. Generalized assertions or interests in administrative convenience ordinarily fail. The interest must be supported by specific evidence rather than speculation.
Only if the government demonstrates that denying the exemption to the religious claimant is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. When a policy allows discretionary exemptions for secular reasons but refuses them for religious ones, the selective denial usually fails narrow tailoring.