What is the primary difference between Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Scrutiny?

Strict Scrutiny requires a compelling interest and a necessary means, while Intermediate Scrutiny requires an important interest and a substantially related means. Strict Scrutiny applies to race; Intermediate Scrutiny applies to gender.

Which Supreme Court case first established Intermediate Scrutiny?

The standard was first explicitly applied in the 1976 case of Craig v. Boren, which successfully challenged an Oklahoma law that set different drinking ages for men and women.

Can a law that discriminates against men still pass Intermediate Scrutiny?

Yes. Intermediate Scrutiny applies regardless of which gender is burdened. For example, the Court upheld a selective service draft registration law for men only in Rostker v. Goldberg, based on the important government interest of national defense, although this case is highly debated.

Does Intermediate Scrutiny apply to all gender identity claims?

While the legal landscape is evolving, courts increasingly treat discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status as a form of sex discrimination subject to Intermediate Scrutiny or similar heightened review under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, while under Title VII, signals a broad view of sex discrimination.

Categories: CivilDiscrimination

The Essential Guide to Intermediate Scrutiny and Gender

Meta Description: Intermediate Scrutiny Explained

The U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause is safeguarded by three tiers of judicial review. Discover how Intermediate Scrutiny became the critical legal standard for analyzing laws based on gender, why it requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification,” and the landmark Supreme Court cases that define its application today, ensuring fairness and equal treatment under the law.

The quest for equality under the law is a foundational principle of the American legal system. While most governmental actions are easily upheld by courts, actions that classify people based on certain characteristics, like gender, face a tougher legal test. This test, known as Intermediate Scrutiny, sits at the heart of modern gender discrimination jurisprudence.

For anyone navigating civil rights, employment law, or constitutional challenges, understanding this standard is paramount. It determines whether a law that treats men and women differently will be allowed to stand.

The Three Pillars of Equal Protection Review

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to apply their laws equally to all persons. To evaluate whether a law violates this clause, the Supreme Court has developed a three-tiered system of judicial review, which applies to government actions at both the state and federal levels:

Rational Basis Review: The lowest tier. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This is the default test for most economic and social legislation, and the government almost always wins.
Strict Scrutiny: The highest tier. The law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and must be narrowly tailored. This is reserved for laws involving suspect classifications (like race, national origin, and religion) or those infringing upon fundamental rights.
Intermediate Scrutiny (Heightened Scrutiny): The middle tier. This is applied to quasi-suspect classifications, most notably gender and legitimacy (children born out of wedlock).

Tip Box: Classifying the Classification

Gender is not a “suspect” class like race—it’s a “quasi-suspect” class. This distinction is the core reason for the Intermediate Scrutiny test, which is designed to provide robust protection against stereotyping without the near-automatic invalidation that strict scrutiny often entails.

The Two-Pronged Test for Gender Classifications

The Intermediate Scrutiny test requires the government to satisfy a rigorous, two-part standard to uphold a law that draws a distinction based on gender:

Scrutiny Prong	Requirement
Important Governmental Objective	The government must show that the law serves an important state interest. This is a higher burden than the “legitimate” interest required by Rational Basis.
Substantially Related Means	The means (the gender-based classification) chosen to achieve that objective must be substantially related to the achievement of the objective. This is less restrictive than the “necessary” requirement of Strict Scrutiny, but still demanding.

The “Exceedingly Persuasive Justification” Standard

In later cases, the Supreme Court intensified the scrutiny applied in gender cases by adding the requirement that the government must provide an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the classification. This phrase, famously articulated in cases like United States v. Virginia (1996), effectively raised the bar for Intermediate Scrutiny, pushing it closer to Strict Scrutiny in practice, sometimes leading to the term “skeptical scrutiny” or “exacting scrutiny.”

Crucially, this justification must be genuine, not one hypothesized after the fact. Furthermore, the justification cannot be based on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females, which is often how courts strike down laws based on outdated stereotypes.

Landmark Cases Defining the Standard

The history of Intermediate Scrutiny for gender discrimination is marked by several pivotal Supreme Court decisions that solidified and strengthened the standard over time.

Case Study: Craig v. Boren (1976)

This is the definitive case that established the Intermediate Scrutiny standard. Oklahoma had passed a law permitting women to buy “3.2% beer” at age 18, but required men to wait until age 21. The state argued this was justified by statistics showing that young men were arrested for drunk driving significantly more often than young women.

The Ruling:

The Court struck down the law. While preventing drunk driving was deemed an “important governmental objective,” the statistical evidence linking the gender classification to this goal was found insufficient. The gender-based differential was not “substantially related” to achieving traffic safety. The law was based on an overbroad generalization.

Case Study: United States v. Virginia (1996)

This case challenged the male-only admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a state-supported school. Virginia argued that single-sex education provided important benefits that contributed to educational diversity.

The Ruling:

The Court ruled against VMI, citing the state’s failure to provide an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” The proposed female-only alternative (VWIL) was a “pale shadow” of VMI and failed to provide equal opportunity. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion emphasized that gender classifications must not rely on “fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females.”

Caution: Compensatory Discrimination

Intermediate Scrutiny is sometimes used to uphold laws designed to compensate women for past economic or societal discrimination, such as certain Social Security benefits or property tax exemptions for widows (e.g., Kahn v. Shevin). However, for these laws to survive scrutiny, the government must show the classification actually operates to remedy past harm and is not merely perpetuating stereotypes (e.g., Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan).

Summary: Navigating the Intermediate Scrutiny Standard

The Intermediate Scrutiny test has served as a powerful tool in dismantling gender-based discrimination in the United States, forcing government actors to justify their classifications with objective proof rather than traditional assumptions.

It is the constitutional standard applied to all laws that classify individuals on the basis of gender, making gender a “quasi-suspect” class.
To pass the test, the government must prove both an important governmental objective and a substantially related means.
The modern application requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification,” which must be genuine and cannot be based on stereotypes or overbroad generalizations.
The standard’s power lies in its ability to strike down classifications that harm either men or women, ensuring equal opportunities, especially in areas like education and employment.

Card Summary: Why Intermediate Scrutiny Matters

Intermediate Scrutiny is more than just a legal term; it represents a constitutional check on government power that ensures policies impacting half the population are rooted in real-world differences or genuine compensatory goals, not outdated gender roles. When faced with a law that discriminates based on gender, a qualified Legal Expert will immediately apply this two-pronged test to challenge its validity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What is the primary difference between Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Scrutiny?: A: Strict Scrutiny requires a compelling interest and a necessary means, while Intermediate Scrutiny requires an important interest and a substantially related means. Strict Scrutiny applies to race; Intermediate Scrutiny applies to gender.
Q: Which Supreme Court case first established Intermediate Scrutiny?: A: The standard was first explicitly applied in the 1976 case of Craig v. Boren, which successfully challenged an Oklahoma law that set different drinking ages for men and women.
Q: Can a law that discriminates against men still pass Intermediate Scrutiny?: A: Yes. Intermediate Scrutiny applies regardless of which gender is burdened. For example, the Court upheld a selective service draft registration law for men only in Rostker v. Goldberg, based on the important government interest of national defense, although this case is highly debated.
Q: Does Intermediate Scrutiny apply to all gender identity claims?: A: While the legal landscape is evolving, courts increasingly treat discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status as a form of sex discrimination subject to Intermediate Scrutiny or similar heightened review under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, while under Title VII, signals a broad view of sex discrimination.

Disclaimer: This blog post is generated by an AI assistant and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and cite authoritative sources, constitutional law is complex and subject to continuous interpretation. Always consult with a qualified Legal Expert for advice specific to your situation.

Your source for insightful legal analysis.

Intermediate Scrutiny, Gender Discrimination, Equal Protection Clause, Craig v. Boren, Constitutional Law, Quasi-Suspect Classification, Heightened Scrutiny, United States v. Virginia, Important Governmental Objectives, Substantially Related, Supreme Court, Federal Courts, Discrimination, Civil, Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection, Case Law