Strict scrutiny facts for kids

Strict scrutiny is the strongest way courts in the United States check if a government law or action is fair. It's like a very high bar the government must clear. This standard helps courts decide if the government's actions are truly needed, especially when they might affect important constitutional rights.

There are different levels of how closely courts look at laws. Strict scrutiny is the toughest. Other levels include "rational basis review" and "intermediate scrutiny." These checks apply to laws and actions from all parts of the U.S. government.

The idea of these different levels of review started with a court case called United States v. Carolene Products Co. in 1938. This case was part of many decisions checking new laws from the "New Deal" era. The first time the Supreme Court used strict scrutiny and decided the government's actions were okay was in Korematsu v. United States (1944). In that case, the Court said that protecting the country from spies was more important than Mr. Korematsu's individual rights at that time.

When Courts Use Strict Scrutiny

U.S. courts use strict scrutiny in two main situations:

• When a very important right from the Bill of Rights is affected. This includes rights protected by the 14th Amendment.
• When a government action treats certain groups differently. This often applies to groups based on race or national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, a law or policy must meet three tough requirements:

Is There a Compelling Government Interest?

The government must show it has a really important reason for its action. This reason must be necessary or crucial. Courts haven't given a perfect definition, but examples include protecting national security or saving many lives. It also means not breaking clear rules in the Constitution.

Is the Law Narrowly Tailored?

The law or action must be designed very carefully to achieve its important goal. It cannot be too broad, meaning it affects too many people or things unnecessarily. It also can't miss important parts of the problem it's trying to solve. If it's not precise, it's not "narrowly tailored."

Is It the Least Restrictive Way?

The government must prove there is no other, less impactful way to reach its important goal. If there's a different method that would achieve the same result but affect people's rights less, then the current law won't pass. It has to be the option that restricts rights the least.