Also known as: middle-level standard of review · middle level standards of review · intermediate scrutiny · intermediate standard of review
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard of judicial review positioned between rational basis and strict scrutiny. The government must demonstrate that a challenged classification serves an important governmental objective and that the means are substantially related to achieving that objective.
Monica Morgan and her husband jointly own their home. State law designates the husband as head of household and permits him to sell the property without her consent. Monica challenges the statute after an unauthorized sale. The court applies the middle level standard of review to the gender classification and finds no substantial relationship to an important governmental objective.
Mercury Industries operates a cable system. A federal rule requires carriage of certain local stations on designated channels. Mercury claims the mandate burdens its programming choices. The court applies the middle level standard of review to the content-neutral regulation and examines whether it advances important interests without burdening substantially more speech than necessary.
Miguel Mendoza seeks admission to a state military academy that excludes women. The academy defends the single-sex policy as advancing leadership training. The court applies the middle level standard of review to the gender classification and requires the state to supply an exceedingly persuasive justification substantially related to an important objective.
Michael Miller seeks support for his nonmarital child six years after birth. State law imposes a six-year limit on such claims while allowing marital children to seek support indefinitely. The court applies the middle level standard of review to the illegitimacy classification and finds no substantial relationship to the state's interest in preventing stale claims.
Momentum Capital holds copyrights set to expire under prior law. A new statute extends terms for existing works. Momentum argues the extension lacks sufficient justification. The court applies the middle level standard of review to assess whether the extension serves important interests without unduly burdening speech interests.
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 caseMelanie Morris seeks to register a trademark containing a disparaging term. The PTO denies registration under a statutory bar. Morris challenges the denial as viewpoint discrimination. The court applies the middle level standard of review to determine whether the regulation advances important interests unrelated to suppression of speech.
Simon Tam serves as the lead singer of the rock group The Slants, whose members are Asian-Americans. He chose the name in an effort to reclaim the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory reference to Asian persons. The group has incorporated childhood slurs into its lyrics and titled albums including The Yellow Album and Slanted Eyes, Slanted Hearts. Tam filed an application with the Patent and Trademark Office seeking registration of THE SLANTS as a trademark. The PTO examining attorney rejected the application after applying a two-part analysis and concluding that a substantial composite of persons of Asian descent would find the mark offensive. The attorney cited dictionary definitions labeling the term as derogatory and evidence that the band's name had prompted cancellation of a performance along with negative comments from online readers. Tam appealed the denial first to the examining attorney and then to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which upheld the refusal. Tam then brought the case before the Federal Circuit. Sitting en banc, that court reversed the Board. The Government petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted review.
View caseThe middle level standard of review applies to gender classifications and classifications based on illegitimacy. It also governs content-neutral regulations of speech. The government must show an important objective and a substantial relationship between the classification and that objective.
Supporting sources
The government must supply an exceedingly persuasive justification that the classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective. The justification must be genuine rather than hypothesized and may not rely on overbroad generalizations.
Supporting sources
Strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring. The middle level standard requires only an important interest and substantial relationship. Gender and illegitimacy classifications receive the middle level standard rather than strict scrutiny.
Supporting sources
No. All racial classifications receive strict scrutiny regardless of whether they confer benefits or impose burdens. Earlier cases applying the middle level standard to certain benign racial classifications were overruled.
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…