Also known as: narrowly tailored · narrowly tailors · narrow tailors
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional principle requiring that a law or government action advancing a compelling or substantial interest be precisely drawn so that it does not burden substantially more protected activity than necessary.
The city council enacted a program reserving 30 percent of public contracts for businesses owned by members of specified racial minorities. Navarro Industries, a non-minority firm, lost a bid despite submitting the lowest price. The firm sued, arguing the set-aside lacked evidence of specific past discrimination in the local construction industry and swept too broadly by including groups without proven injury.
A state statute required any person with unpaid child support to obtain a court order before marrying. Nigel Nelson, who owed arrears from a prior relationship, was denied a marriage license. He challenged the law, claiming it broadly restricted the fundamental right to marry without focusing only on those likely to default on new support obligations.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state law imposed detailed informed-consent and waiting-period rules on all abortions performed after the first trimester. Nia Nkosi, a physician, sought to enjoin enforcement for patients whose health risks emerged later. The challenge asserted that the rules extended beyond the period when the state's health interest was strongest and applied uniformly without regard to individual medical needs.
A city denied a church's permit to expand its building in a historic district, citing preservation rules. The church claimed the denial substantially burdened its religious exercise. City officials defended the ordinance as generally applicable but offered no evidence that less restrictive alternatives, such as design modifications, could not achieve the preservation goal.
A federal regulation required employers to provide insurance coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptives. Nexus Financial, a closely held corporation owned by individuals with religious objections, sought an exemption for certain methods. The company argued that applying the mandate to it was not the least restrictive means of advancing the government's interest in employee health access.
A federal program awarded bonus points in highway construction bids to contractors that subcontracted a set percentage of work to businesses owned by members of designated racial minorities. Adarand Constructors submitted the low bid but lost the contract after the bonus was applied. The firm challenged the preference as overbroad because it applied nationwide without findings of discrimination in the specific industry and locality.
Narrow tailoring requires that the means chosen fit the compelling interest so closely that illegitimate motives are unlikely, but it does not always demand the absolute least restrictive alternative. A regulation satisfies narrow tailoring if it promotes the interest more effectively than without the regulation and does not burden substantially more protected activity than necessary.
Supporting sources
Race-based programs must be supported by specific evidence of past discrimination in the relevant industry and jurisdiction. The set-aside or preference must be limited to remedying that identified discrimination rather than addressing general societal discrimination, and it must not unnecessarily exclude non-minority contractors.
Supporting sources
Yes. Mechanical systems that award fixed points solely on the basis of race fail narrow tailoring because they make race decisive without individualized review of each applicant. Programs that use race only as one flexible factor among many are more likely to satisfy the requirement.
Supporting sources
A content-neutral regulation is narrowly tailored if it promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without the regulation. It need not be the least restrictive means, provided it does not suppress substantially more speech than necessary.
Supporting sources
…hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from infringing fundamental liberty interests, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S., at 721. We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights…