Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Scrutinizing Scrutiny: Judicial Scrutiny and Its Implications

4/24/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Shannon Alvino

Shannon Alvino is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science and Criminal Justice.

           As soon as the Framers put down their pens and stumbled into the Philadelphia sunlight, our national government has been compartmentalized into three branches, each engaged in a delicate dance guided by a system of checks and balances enumerated in that governing document. One facet of this mutable tension is in courts’ power of judicial review, put forth in the seminal Marbury v. Madison decision.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each,” [1] a quote that unfailingly reverberates within law school lecture halls on the first day.
It is through this judge-made doctrine that the judicial branch evaluates the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions, vigilantly safeguarding individuals’ rights. How does the Supreme Court shoulder this politically significant burden?  The answer is in two words: judicial scrutiny.
           When specific contested legislation finds itself on the corner of First and East Capitol Streets NE, the Justices push up the sleeves of their robes and apply either rational basis, intermediate, or strict scrutiny. Rational basis review was first utilized by the post-New Deal Court regarding economic regulation. This doctrine states that “so far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitutional restriction, a State is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose.” [2]
This highly deferential standard has been expanded well beyond questions of economic liberty to cases where no fundamental rights (such as the right to vote) or suspect classifications (including race and religion) are implicated. Categorizations like age, class, criminal history, and disability are placed under the weak microscope of rational basis review. This legislation is constitutional until proven not.
           Intermediate scrutiny sets the bar a little higher. Placing the burden of proof on the government, the Burger Court first applied this stratum of judicial review in examining the constitutionality of gender categories. Under this doctrine and in order to withstand constitutional challenge,“previous cases must establish that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” [3] The justices yank this out of their judicial toolbox to assess the “quasi-suspect” classifications of sex, illegitimacy, and immigration status. However, “indicia of suspectness” are malleable, often rendering their application imprecise and inconsistent,
           Strict scrutiny is the most exacting standard, a stanchion of individual liberties. After a lengthy examination of “filled milk”, Carolene Products’s famous Footnote Four implicitly envisioned variant levels of judicial scrutiny and discussed “whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, … which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.” [4]
However, the Court declined to utilize this stringent rule until it ironically condoned racial exclusion, the last time this form of discrimination was upheld. “All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect … It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.” [5] To survive strict scrutiny unscathed, a statute must be justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored, and the least restrictive means of achieving that objective. Fundamental rights and unequivocally suspect classes trigger its use.
           As a quick review: rational basis requests that the regulation be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, intermediate scrutiny requires that legislation be substantially related to an important governmental objective, and strict scrutiny demands that the statute be both necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
​
                    So, why does it matter how nine people evaluate the actions of another 535? Judicial scrutiny is not relegated to dusty law volumes or constitutional law students’ dog-eared flashcards; it continues to determine judicial decisions and subsequently, the scope of individual rights. Strict scrutiny can be bad news for both racial discrimination and affirmative action. Strict scrutiny can also affect birth control. Recently, judicial review has been nudged onto center stage regarding the recent hullaballoo over the rights of members of the LGBT community. In United States v. Windsor, the Second Circuit Court ascribed “quasi-suspect” status, but the Court declined to address the classification issue. Scholars argue that sexual orientation measures up to the “suspect” requirements, but would benefit more from “quasi-suspect” classification. However these critical constitutional questions play out, judicial scrutiny will be largely determinative of their outcomes.

[1] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 137 (1803).
[2] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 503 (1934).
[3] Craig v. Borden, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976).
[4] United States v. Carolene Products Company, 305 U.S. 144, 155 (1938).
[5] Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944).

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​