Also known as:most-rigid scrutiny · strict scrutiny · exacting scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of judicial review demanding that a classification be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest. The standard applies to racial classifications under the Equal Protection Clause and requires an independent legitimate purpose free of invidious discrimination.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Santeria Ritual Ordinance Challenge
City officials enacted an ordinance that singled out the animal-slaughter practices of a particular religious group. Musa Mensah, a practitioner, faced prosecution under the measure. The court applied strict scrutiny because the ordinance targeted religious conduct and lacked any compelling justification independent of suppressing the practice.
Minority Contractor Set-Aside Dispute
A city created a contracting preference for minority-owned firms without evidence of past discrimination in the local industry. Monica Morgan, an owner of a non-qualifying firm, challenged the program. The court subjected the racial classification to most rigid scrutiny and invalidated it for lacking a strong basis in evidence of identified discrimination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Foster Agency Exemption Policy
A city allowed case-by-case exemptions from its same-sex certification rule for foster agencies. Madison Meyers, who ran a religiously affiliated agency, sought an exemption on faith-based grounds. The court applied strict scrutiny because the discretionary exemption mechanism rendered the policy not generally applicable.
Interracial Marriage Ban Challenge
A state statute prohibited marriages between persons of different races. Meredith Maxwell and her partner, who were of different races, sought a license and were denied. The court subjected the racial classification to most rigid scrutiny and struck it down for lacking any purpose independent of invidious discrimination.
Contraceptive Access Restriction
A state law criminalized the use of contraceptives by married couples. Mohan Malhotra and his spouse faced prosecution for obtaining and using the devices. The court applied strict scrutiny to the burden on the fundamental right of marital privacy and invalidated the statute.
Griswold v. Connecticut381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Campaign Finance Contribution Limit
A federal statute imposed contribution limits on political parties that coordinated with candidates. Miles Montgomery, a party official, challenged the limits as burdening core political speech. The court applied strict scrutiny to the content-based restriction and required a compelling justification narrowly tailored to prevent corruption.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission540 U.S. 93, 226–27 (2003)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a court apply most rigid scrutiny to a government classification?+
Most rigid scrutiny applies to racial classifications under the Equal Protection Clause. The classification must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest and must rest on a purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.
Supporting sources
How does most rigid scrutiny differ from rational basis review?+
Most rigid scrutiny requires the government to prove a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. Rational basis review upholds a classification if it is rationally related to any legitimate governmental purpose.
Supporting sources
Does most rigid scrutiny apply only to race-based laws?+
The phrase most rigid scrutiny is used for racial classifications. Other suspect classifications and burdens on fundamental rights also trigger strict scrutiny, the functional equivalent of the same demanding standard.
Supporting sources
576 U.S. 644 (2015)Legislation and Regulation
…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…