Strict Scrutiny Case Law

In Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977), the Court held that a classification base on illegitimacy is not suspect so as to require strict scrutiny. However, using a mid-level or mid-tier analysis, the Court held that at a minimum, a statutory classification must bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. The Court explained,  “in this context, the standard just stated is a minimum; the Court sometimes requires more. ‘Though the latitude given state economic and social regulation is necessarily broad, when a state statutory classifications approach sensitive and fundamental personal rights, the Court exercises a stricter scrutiny.’ “ Id. At 767.

When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978).

Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the burden of producing evidence to show that statutes are narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977).

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976)(noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78.