Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A governmental or protected interest of sufficient importance or substantiality to justify imposing a burden on an individual's constitutional rights. The interest must be evenhanded in application and not disproportionate to the purposes it serves.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Photo ID Requirement at Transit Polls
Whitney Washington arrives at an early-voting site inside a train station and is asked to show a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. Election officials verify the ID electronically and offer her a provisional ballot when a minor database flag appears. The requirement applies uniformly to every in-person voter at the site. The state's interests in deterring impersonation and maintaining public confidence in election integrity support the rule.
Exclusion of Polygraph Evidence
Wren Wright seeks to introduce polygraph results to bolster his testimony that he did not commit the charged offense. The trial court applies a per se rule barring all such evidence. The rule prevents Wright from presenting direct testimonial support for his defense. The government's interest in reliable evidence is not weighty enough to justify the complete exclusion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Course Outlines
United States v. Scheffer523 U.S. 303 (1998)
Third-Party Guilt Evidence Barred
Wesley Wong attempts to introduce testimony that a third party confessed to the crime. The state court excludes the evidence under a rule that bars third-party guilt proof unless it meets a heightened reliability threshold. The exclusion prevents Wong from presenting a complete defense. The state's interest in avoiding confusion does not rise to the level of a weighty justification.
Holmes v. South Carolina547 U.S. 319 (2006)
Coerced Confession Procedure
Wade Watson challenges the admission of his confession on the ground that it was involuntary. The state procedure leaves the voluntariness question to the same jury that decides guilt. The arrangement denies Watson a reliable determination of the constitutional claim. The state's interest in efficient trials does not outweigh the need for a separate and fair hearing.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What makes a state interest sufficiently weighty in the voting context?+
A state interest is sufficiently weighty when it is evenhanded, advances fraud prevention or election integrity, and does not impose severe burdens on voters. Courts balance the character and magnitude of the burden against the precise interests the state advances. Provisional ballots and cost-free alternatives help keep burdens modest.
Supporting sources
How does the weighty-interest test apply to evidentiary exclusions under the Compulsory Process Clause?+
An evidentiary rule violates the clause only when it infringes a weighty interest of the accused and is arbitrary or disproportionate to its purposes. Direct testimonial evidence about what happened is more likely to qualify as weighty than other forms of proof. Per se exclusions that lack supporting considerations from precedent are vulnerable.
Supporting sources
Does the absence of proven fraud weaken a claimed weighty interest?+
No. States may act on the basis of preventive interests such as deterring fraud before it occurs and bolstering public confidence. The Constitution does not require proof of widespread past fraud at the specific location. Legislative predictive judgments receive deference when burdens remain reasonable.
Supporting sources
When does a procedural rule fail the weighty-interest test in criminal cases?+
A rule fails when it arbitrarily excludes important defense evidence without serving legitimate interests or when it is disproportionate to its goals. Examples include statutes that bar whole categories of testimony without the considerations that supported earlier precedent. The impact on the accused's ability to present a complete defense is decisive.
Supporting sources
523 U.S. 303 (1998)Evidence
…have found the exclusion of evidence to be unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused. See, e.g., id., at 56; Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U. S. 284, 302 (1973); Washington v. Texas, 388 U. S. 14, 22–23 (1967). In Rock v. Arkansas, we held that a per se rule…