Also known as: most-rigorous scrutiny · strict scrutiny
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The most demanding standard of judicial review applied to governmental classifications or burdens on fundamental rights. It requires the government to demonstrate that the challenged action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Maurice Marshall opened a small animal sanctuary in the city and performed religious ceremonies involving animal slaughter. City officials enacted an ordinance that singled out his practices while permitting other forms of animal killing. Marshall sued, claiming the ordinance suppressed his religion. The court applied most rigorous scrutiny and invalidated the law because the city could not prove it was necessary to any compelling interest.
Mariam Mansour, owner of a minority-owned construction firm, bid on a city project that reserved a percentage of contracts for minority businesses. The city offered only general assertions of past societal discrimination rather than evidence of specific local bias. Mansour sued under the Equal Protection Clause. The court subjected the program to most rigorous scrutiny and struck it down for lack of narrow tailoring to identified past discrimination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Matthew Martinez ran a religious foster agency that declined to certify same-sex couples on faith-based grounds. City officials enforced a policy allowing case-by-case exemptions for other agencies but refused one for Martinez. He sued, arguing the policy was not generally applicable. The court applied most rigorous scrutiny and held that the city failed to justify denying the exemption to the religious agency.
Meredith Maxwell sought to register a trademark containing a critical ethnic reference for her apparel line. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application under the disparagement provision. Maxwell sued, asserting viewpoint discrimination. The court applied most rigorous scrutiny and invalidated the bar because the government may not suppress private speech based on disapproval of its message.
Michelle Murphy, a married woman, sought contraceptive advice from her physician but faced criminal penalties under state law. She challenged the statute as an interference with marital privacy. The court applied most rigorous scrutiny to the burden on a fundamental right and invalidated the law for lacking narrow tailoring to any compelling interest.
Maya Malik and her partner were arrested under a state law criminalizing private consensual intimate conduct. They challenged the statute as violating substantive due process. The court applied most rigorous scrutiny to the infringement on a fundamental liberty interest and struck down the law because it was not narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.
Most rigorous scrutiny applies when a law burdens a fundamental right or employs a suspect classification such as race. The government must then prove the measure is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Excerpts show this standard governs free exercise claims involving non-neutral laws and equal protection challenges to racial classifications.
Supporting sources
Most rigorous scrutiny demands a compelling interest and narrow tailoring while rational basis review requires only a legitimate interest and rational relation. The higher standard applies to suspect classifications and fundamental rights. The lower standard governs ordinary economic or social legislation.
Supporting sources
The government must demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the challenged action is the least restrictive means of achieving it. Failure on either prong invalidates the law or policy.
Supporting sources
Yes. A policy that permits officials to grant case-by-case exemptions is not generally applicable and therefore triggers most rigorous scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. The government must then satisfy the compelling-interest and narrow-tailoring requirements.
Supporting sources
…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…