Also known as: state interests · State's interest · states' interests · governmental interest · compelling state interest
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A governmental objective or purpose invoked to justify a law or regulation under constitutional scrutiny. The interest must be compelling or important and the means chosen must be narrowly tailored when strict or intermediate scrutiny applies.
A governmental objective or purpose invoked to justify a law or regulation under constitutional scrutiny. The interest must be compelling or important and the means chosen must be narrowly tailored when strict or intermediate scrutiny applies.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state's concern or stake in having its own law applied to a particular issue or set of parties. Courts weigh these interests when deciding which state's law governs under interest analysis or the most-significant-relationship test.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state's concern or stake in having its own law applied to a particular issue or set of parties. Courts weigh these interests when deciding which state's law governs under interest analysis or the most-significant-relationship test.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Steven Silva opens a Santeria temple in the city and begins ritual animal sacrifice. The city enacts an ordinance banning the precise method of slaughter used in the rituals while permitting identical methods for secular and other religious purposes. The ordinance fails because the asserted public-health interest is not compelling and the law is not narrowly tailored.
Santiago Sanchez owes unpaid child support and seeks to marry Sofia Stern. A state statute requires him to obtain court permission before marrying. The statute is struck down because the state's interest in collecting support, while legitimate, is not sufficiently important and the restriction is not closely tailored to that interest.
Summit Bank applies for a development permit to expand its coastal facility. The commission grants the permit only if the bank conveys a public-access easement across its beachfront parcel. The condition fails because there is no essential nexus between the easement and any legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit.
Samantha Stone is prosecuted under a federal statute creating a civil remedy for gender-motivated violence. The statute is challenged as exceeding Congress's commerce power. The asserted federal interest in combating such violence is insufficient to sustain the law because the regulated conduct is noneconomic and the statute lacks a jurisdictional element tying it to interstate commerce.
A state interest qualifies as compelling when it is of the highest order, such as preventing harm to public health or protecting fundamental rights from immediate threat. The interest must be actual rather than hypothesized and the law must be narrowly tailored to advance it without unnecessary infringement on constitutional rights.
Supporting sources
The law fails constitutional scrutiny even if the underlying interest is legitimate. The court invalidates the restriction because a less burdensome alternative would achieve the same objective without unnecessarily interfering with protected rights such as marriage or religious exercise.
Supporting sources
Stella Shapiro, domiciled in State A, sells immovable property located in State B to Samuel Soto. When title questions arise, the forum court must determine whether State B's local law governs the transfer. The court treats the reference as to the totality of State B's law, including its choice-of-law rules, to reach the same result a State B court would reach.
Silverline Industries is incorporated in Delaware. Nonresident officers hold shares in the company but have no other contacts with the state. Plaintiffs attempt to assert quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over the officers' shares to adjudicate a derivative claim. Delaware's asserted interest in supervising corporate fiduciaries does not support jurisdiction when the sequestration statute does not specifically target such actions.
A court identifies each interested state's policies and determines which state has the dominant interest in applying its local law to the particular issue. The forum considers the policies underlying the conflicting rules and the relative strength of each state's connection to the parties and the transaction.
Supporting sources
…corporate fiduciaries such as appellants. This argument is undercut by the failure of the Delaware Legislature to assert the state interest appellee finds so compelling. Delaware law bases jurisdiction, not on appellants' status as corporate fiduciaries, but rather on the presence of their property in the State. Although the…