Also known as: intermediate reviews · intermediate scrutiny
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of judicial review positioned between rational basis and strict scrutiny. The government must demonstrate that the challenged classification serves an important governmental objective and that the means are substantially related to achieving that objective. The justification must be genuine and may not rest on overbroad generalizations or stereotypes.
Leah and Mark co-own farmland and equipment under a state farm-credit statute that automatically designates the husband as head of household. Mark alone pledges the assets to secure a loan. Leah sues, claiming the statute denies her equal control solely because of her sex. The court applies intermediate review and invalidates the statute because the gender line is not substantially related to any important governmental interest in efficient lending.
A federal order requires cable operators to carry local broadcast channels on their systems. Elm Solar, a regional grid operator with customer portals, challenges the displacement of its own conservation content. The court subjects the content-neutral mandate to intermediate review and upholds it after finding that the rule advances grid stability without burdening substantially more speech than necessary.
A state university statute permits married male professors to license jointly owned courseware without spousal consent but requires married female professors to obtain consent. Professor Linda Chen's husband withholds consent and blocks a license. Linda sues under the Equal Protection Clause. The court applies intermediate review, finds no exceedingly persuasive justification, and strikes down the gender classification.
A state statute imposes a six-year limit on paternity actions brought on behalf of nonmarital children while allowing marital children to seek support at any time. A nonmarital child’s representative sues after the period expires. The court subjects the illegitimacy classification to intermediate review and invalidates the statute because the state failed to show a substantial relationship to preventing stale claims.
Cedar Homes seeks rezoning to operate a small group home for adults with intellectual disabilities. Neighbors object solely on the basis of prejudice against the prospective residents. The city council denies the permit. The court evaluates the denial under rational basis review but notes that intermediate review would apply to gender or illegitimacy classifications and invalidates the action because bare animus supplies no legitimate interest.
In July 1980, respondent Jan Hannah purchased a building at 201 Featherston Street in Cleburne, Texas. Hannah intended to lease the property to Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC) for use as a group home. The home would house thirteen mentally retarded men and women under constant staff supervision. The building contained four bedrooms and two baths, and CLC planned to add a half bath while complying with all applicable state and federal regulations for an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded. The site lay in an R-3 Apartment House District. The city's zoning ordinance permitted apartment houses, boarding houses, hospitals, and nursing homes in that district without special permission. However, the ordinance required a special use permit, renewable annually after a public hearing, for hospitals for the insane or feeble-minded. The city classified the proposed group home as a hospital for the feeble-minded and informed CLC that a permit was required. After a public hearing, the City Council voted three to one to deny the application. CLC and its prospective residents filed suit in federal district court against the city and its officials. They alleged that the ordinance and its application discriminated against the mentally retarded in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The district court upheld the ordinance and the denial. It found that the council's decision was motivated by the residents' mental retardation yet rationally related to legitimate interests such as neighborhood safety and property values. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that mental retardation is a quasi-suspect class and that the ordinance was invalid both facially and as applied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the equal protection issues raised by the zoning ordinance and its application to the proposed group home.
View caseEldred operates an online archive that relies on public-domain works. A federal statute extends copyright terms for existing works. Eldred challenges the extension as violating the First Amendment. The court reviews the regulation under a deferential standard and upholds the statute.
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 caseThe government must show an important governmental objective and a substantial relationship between the classification and that objective. The justification must be genuine and may not rely on overbroad generalizations about the roles of men and women.
Yes. Content-neutral regulations such as must-carry rules for cable operators are subject to intermediate review. The government must demonstrate that the regulation advances important interests unrelated to the suppression of speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary.
Rational basis review requires only a legitimate interest and a rational relationship, while intermediate review demands an important interest and a substantial relationship. Gender and illegitimacy classifications trigger intermediate review rather than rational basis.
No. Reliance on outdated assumptions about husbands as heads of household or similar stereotypes fails intermediate review. The government must supply an exceedingly persuasive justification that is substantially related to a genuine important objective.
…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…