Opinion ID: 782210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Levels of Scrutiny Defined

Text: 16 When a legislative enactment has been challenged on equal protection grounds, one standard of review is rational basis review, which requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. See Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 528-29 (1959); Burke Mountain Acad., Inc. v. United States, 715 F.2d 779, 783 (2d Cir.1983). A law will survive this level of scrutiny unless the plaintiff proves that the law's class-based distinctions are wholly irrational. See, e.g., Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331-32 (1981); see also Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 582 (2d Cir.2001) (explaining that rational speculation, as opposed to facts, can justify class-based distinction under rational basis test). But see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (applying less deferential form of rational basis review); Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628, 634 (2d Cir.1998) (noting same); City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 456, 458 (Marshall, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (noting majority's analysis of the equal protection claim of developmentally disabled more searching than traditional rational basis test). 17 A heightened level of review — strict scrutiny — applies when legislation discriminates on the basis of a person's membership in a suspect class or when it burdens a group's exercise of a fundamental right. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-17 (1982); see, e.g., City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 493-94 (1989) (applying strict scrutiny to program that discriminated on basis of race, a suspect classification); Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 668-70 (1966) ($1.50 poll tax unconstitutional because, though facially neutral, it discriminated on basis of wealth in allocation of right to vote); Skinner v. Okla. ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541-42 (1942) (invalidating sterilization law because it impinged on the fundamental right to marriage and procreation of some criminals, but not others). To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must show the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995). 18 More recently, the Supreme Court has developed an intermediate level of scrutiny that lies [b]etween [the] extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny. Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Intermediate scrutiny typically is used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications, United States v. Coleman, 166 F.3d 428, 431 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam), such as gender, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976), or legitimacy, Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91, 98-99 (1982). On occasion intermediate scrutiny has been applied to review a law that affects an important, though not constitutional, right. Coleman, 166 F.3d at 431; cf. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223 (applying, without labeling it as such, an intermediate form of scrutiny to review of a law that implicated right to education). Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show that the challenged legislative enactment is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co., 446 U.S. 142, 150 (1980); Craig, 429 U.S. at 197. Clarifying this standard, the Supreme Court has explained the government must articulate an exceedingly persuasive justification for using the otherwise discouraged classification. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 532-33 (1996). 19