The three levels of scrutiny used by courts to determine the constitutionality of a government action are:
- Strict Scrutiny : This is the highest and most rigorous standard. It applies when a law or government action burdens a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification such as race, religion, or national origin. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the law serves a compelling government interest , is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and is the least restrictive means to do so
- Intermediate Scrutiny : This level is applied primarily in cases involving discrimination based on gender or legitimacy. The government must show that the law or action furthers an important government interest and that the means chosen are substantially related to achieving that interest. It is more demanding than rational basis review but less stringent than strict scrutiny
- Rational Basis Review : This is the most lenient standard and is used when no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are involved. The government only needs to demonstrate that the law or action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The burden of proof is generally on the challenger to show that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose for the law
These three levels form a spectrum of judicial review, with strict scrutiny providing the greatest protection to constitutional rights and rational basis review being the most deferential to government actions
