Also known as: intermediate-level review · intermediate scrutiny
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of judicial review positioned between rational basis review and strict scrutiny. The government must demonstrate an important objective and show that the classification or regulation is substantially related to that objective.
Ines Ibarra and her husband jointly own farmland. A state statute designates the husband as head of household and permits him alone to pledge the property for a loan. Ines challenges the statute after her husband encumbers the land without her consent. The court applies intermediate level review and invalidates the statute because the gender classification lacks an exceedingly persuasive justification substantially related to any important interest.
Ideal Solutions operates a cable system. A federal regulation requires carriage of local broadcast stations on its channels, displacing some of its preferred programming. Ideal Solutions sues, claiming the rule burdens its speech. The court subjects the content-neutral mandate to intermediate level review and upholds it after finding the rule advances important interests in preserving broadcast access without burdening substantially more speech than necessary.
Isabelle Inman seeks admission to a state-supported military college that excludes women. The state defends the policy by citing educational benefits of single-sex training. The court applies intermediate level review and strikes down the exclusion because the state fails to supply an exceedingly persuasive justification showing the classification is substantially related to a genuine important objective rather than overbroad stereotypes.
Ivy Ibarra brings a paternity action on behalf of her nonmarital child more than six years after birth. State law bars such suits after six years while permitting marital children to seek support indefinitely. The court subjects the illegitimacy classification to intermediate level review and invalidates the limitation because it is not substantially related to preventing stale claims.
Integrity Partners posts temporary directional signs for its events. A town ordinance imposes stricter size and duration limits on directional signs than on ideological or political signs. Integrity Partners challenges the code. The court rejects intermediate level review for the content-based distinctions and instead applies strict scrutiny, invalidating the ordinance because the distinctions fail to survive the required scrutiny.
The Town of Gilbert, Arizona, maintains a comprehensive Sign Code that categorizes outdoor signs by the type of information they convey and imposes different restrictions on each category. Ideological signs communicating messages or ideas for noncommercial purposes may be up to 20 square feet and displayed without time limits. Political signs designed to influence elections may be up to 32 square feet and displayed up to 60 days before a primary and 15 days after a general election. Temporary directional signs relating to qualifying events, such as meetings of nonprofit groups, are limited to 6 square feet, may be displayed no more than 12 hours before and 1 hour after the event, and are restricted in placement. Petitioners Good News Community Church and its pastor Clyde Reed are small nondenominational churches that hold services at various temporary locations in the Town. To advertise their services, the Church posts 15 to 20 temporary signs around the Town early on Saturday mornings displaying the Church name and the time and location of the next service, removing them around midday on Sunday. The Town's Sign Code compliance manager cited the Church twice for violating the time limits on temporary directional signs and for failing to include an event date on the signs. Town officials confiscated one sign, which Reed retrieved from municipal offices. Reed contacted the compliance department to reach an accommodation, but the manager informed the Church there would be no leniency and promised to punish future violations. The Churches filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging the Sign Code violated the First Amendment, and sought a preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the Sign Code was content neutral. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseImperial Motors holds copyrights in classic films. A federal statute extends copyright terms by twenty years for existing works. Imperial Motors challenges the extension as exceeding Congress's power. The court applies rational basis review rather than intermediate level review and upholds the statute because the extension is a rational exercise of legislative authority over intellectual property.
In 1998 Congress enacted the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the duration of all federal copyrights by twenty years. For works created by identified natural persons the new term runs from creation until seventy years after the author's death. For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire the term is ninety-five years from publication or one hundred twenty years from creation, whichever expires first. The statute applied these extended terms both to copyrights already in existence and to works created after its effective date. Petitioners are individuals and businesses whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaration that the extension of existing copyrights exceeded Congress's power under the Copyright Clause and violated the First Amendment. On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings the district court entered judgment for the Attorney General. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. A majority of the panel upheld the statute against both challenges, while Judge Sentelle dissented in part on the Copyright Clause issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the extension of existing copyrights exceeds Congress's power under the Copyright Clause and whether the extension violates the First Amendment.
View caseAn important interest lies between a merely legitimate interest and a compelling one. Courts have recognized interests such as preventing teenage pregnancy, promoting grid stability, and preserving broadcast diversity when supported by evidence rather than stereotypes.
Supporting sources
The classification or regulation must be substantially related to the important interest rather than narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. This permits somewhat greater flexibility while still demanding a close fit and rejection of overbroad generalizations.
Supporting sources
Gender classifications and certain content-neutral speech regulations receive intermediate level review. Illegitimacy classifications have also been reviewed under this standard in some cases.
Supporting sources
The government bears the burden of proof under intermediate level review. It must supply an exceedingly persuasive justification showing both an important objective and a substantial relationship.
Supporting sources
…holding attempted by RFRA. Even assuming RFRA would be interpreted in effect to mandate some lesser test, say, one equivalent to intermediate scrutiny, the statute nevertheless would require searching judicial scrutiny of state law with the attendant likelihood of invalidation. This is a considerable congressional intrusion into the…