Talk:Strict scrutiny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.


Where is the citation to the alleged empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts by Adam Winkler which found that laws survive strict scrutiny over thirty percent of the time? In light of the fact that this claim admittedly runs contrary to the majority view of lawyers, a citation should be given.

The way I learned the analysis was to review compelling ENDS and necessary MEANS. Narrowly tailored/ least restrictive prongs are merely elements of the MEANS analysis. does anyone care if I change that? Concededly, it may just be another way to conceptualize the material. Jag149 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, given the title, the article implies silently that Equal Protection is the only setting for strict scrutiny, neglecting the Fundamental Rights setting. Agent Cooper 13:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: though the Fundamental Rights setting is mentioned, in the general characterization, the discussion of discriminatory intent below is derived from EP jurisprudence. Now there are Rights settings where the need for intent is clear (Free Exercise post-Smith) but others where we're not there (yet) (abortion). So the "de jure" section needs clarification, so that people do not wrongly conclude that in ever context that strict scrutiny is employed, de facto burdening of a right, no matter how weighty, is acceptable. Agent Cooper 13:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Scrutiny of prior restraint laws[edit]

I understand that scrutiny applied to prior restraint laws is a type of strict scrutiny, contrary to what this article says. Does anyone have citations that apply here? --tc2011 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs expanding. The two other standards of analysis are not discussed. The "least restrictive means" test can be found in John D. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union et al., 542 U.S. (2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should cite the three elements at the top. The least restrictive means test comes from Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental rights[edit]

I asked for citation for the fact that violations of fundamental rights receive strict scrutiny. Specifically, in what case did the Supreme Court state, point blank, that any infringement of a "fundamental right" receives strict scrutiny?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cases upheld[edit]

I find a significant shortfall of this article, and the one's for intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review, that they do not include any compelling cases which were subjected to such scrutiny and upheld. It seems that the articles contain (or mostly contain, I suppose I could have missed one) cases which failed under such scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)