Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The standard is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle.
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution.
As the name implies, it is more strict than rational basis review but less strict than strict scrutiny. [10] Other forms of intermediate scrutiny are applied in other contexts. For example, under the Free Speech Clause, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are subject to a form of intermediate scrutiny.
Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. [1] ...
In the free speech context, intermediate scrutiny is the test or standard of review that courts apply when analyzing content-neutral speech versus content-based speech. Content-based speech is reviewed under strict scrutiny in which courts evaluate the value of the subject matter or the content of the communication.
In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts the powers of the federal government only to those expressly, i.e., explicitly and clearly, granted to the government by the United States Constitution.
Rational basis review is not a genuine effort to determine the legislature's actual reasons for enacting a statute, nor to inquire into whether a statute does in fact further a legitimate end of government. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every conceivable justification for it is a ...
The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v.United States [5] and Korematsu v. United States. [6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, and religion as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.