- Suspect classification
In
United States Supreme Court jurisprudence , Suspect classification is a classification of groups which meet a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when anEqual Protection claim is asserted against a law alleging unconstitutional discrimination.Strict scrutiny is applied to regulations that affect groups that fall under a "suspect classification."Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification."Rational basis scrutiny is applied to all other discriminatory statutes.To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must meet all of the following criteria:
# The groups' characteristics are . (Race, national origin)
# The group shares a history of discrimination.
# The group is politically impotent.
# The group is a discrete and insular minority. (see U.S. v. Carolene Products)The Supreme Court has recognized that
race ,national origin ,religion , andalienage are suspect classes, and therefore any laws discriminating against these classes are analyzed understrict scrutiny . Quasi-suspect class, with its intermediate scrutiny, it typically reserved for government sponsored discrimination on the basis ofsex orlegitimacy . Rational basis scrutiny covers all other discriminatory statues, i.e.disability , political peference or political affiliation orsexual orientation .Strict Scrutiny
The pratical result of this legal doctrine is that government sponsored discrimination on the account of a citizen's
race , skincolor ,ethnic ornational origin orreligion is, almost, always unconstitutional, unless it is a legitmate, narrowily tailored and temporary piece of legislation dealing withnational security or defense oraffirmative action .Alienage is a unique class in that the class ofillegal aliens is analyzed under intermediate scrutiny while the class oflegal aliens is analyzed under strict scrutiny. Further, because theUnited States Congress has the power to regulateimmigration , Federal statutes which discriminate on alienage are only affordedrational basis scrutiny . State statutes are analyzed according to the above distinction.Intermediate Scrutiny
When intermediate scrutinty is involved, the courts are more likely to uphold the discriminatory law, particulary if its based on real, fact based, biological differencs between the sexes as opposed to sex-based
sterotypes .Rational Scrutiny
When rational basis scrutiny is used, the government is, essentially, being given broad authority to enact discriminatory laws against that particular class, i.e. crimianals. Yet the United States Supreme Court used rational basis scrutiny to strike down an anti-gay law in
1996 (Romer v. Evans ), and did so again in2003 (Lawrence v. Texas ).In reviewing discrimintary laws against Independent or minor political party-affiliated citizens, (i.e.
ballot access , debate participation and bans onfusion ) the high court has often claimed to be using strict or intermediate basis of scrutiny, but the result tends to show a level of defference to the government, normaly seen with rational basis scrutiny.Federal vs. State
The Supreme Court's rulings impose a minimum standard that each State must adhere to. Hence, a State law that discriminates against a citizen because of their race, must be reviewed by the applicable State and inferior Federal courts using the strict scrutiny basis of review. A State may, generally, chose to give its citizens more rights or protections then the minimum standard. Hence, in
2008 , the California Supreme Courts used the strict scrutiny basis of review to strike down a State law denying legal recognition of same-sex marriages.References
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.