University:
Indiana University Bloomington
Course:
Financial and Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions - John J. Wild
Academic year:

2024
Views:

261

Pages:

2
Author:

bratrochanter

Key Cases and Levels of Scrutiny 1. Rational Basis Test: This is the default standard for laws that do not affect fundamental rights or involve “suspect” classifications (like race). Under this test, government actions are generally upheld as long as they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. For example, in Fitzgerald v. Racing Association of Central Iowa, the Court upheld a tax law differentiating rates for racetracks and riverboat casinos, reasoning that legislators had plausible grounds for promoting economic development and the historical significance of riverboats. 2. Strict Scrutiny: This most rigorous level of review is applied when government actions discriminate based on race or affect fundamental rights, such as the right to vote or travel. For such laws to stand, they must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. In Bush v. Gore (2000), the Court used strict scrutiny to evaluate the Florida recount procedures, ultimately halting the recount due to concerns that inconsistencies in vote-counting standards might violate equal protection by valuing some votes over others. 3. Intermediate Scrutiny: This level of scrutiny applies to laws that classify based on sex or illegitimacy. Under this standard, government actions must be substantially related to an important government purpose. In Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court examined the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies in admissions, holding that race-conscious policies must be part of a holistic review process and cannot automatically determine admissions decisions. The Court upheld the law school’s policy in Grutter for seeking a broad-based diversity but struck down the undergraduate policy in Gratz for being too rigidly race-focused. 4. Application to Voting Rights and Voter ID Laws: In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, despite arguments that it disproportionately impacted elderly and lowincome voters. The Court found that the state’s interest in preventing voter fraud was legitimate and that the ID requirement was a general rule not excessively burdensome on any particular group. Equal Protection and Suspect Classifications Suspect classifications, including race and national origin, trigger strict scrutiny. Alienage (non-citizenship status) also receives strict scrutiny but with an exception for roles closely related to democratic governance, such as police officers, for which rational basis applies. Gender-based classifications are reviewed under intermediate scrutiny, with the government needing to prove a substantial connection to an important objective. Contract Clause and Government Obligations The Contract Clause of the Constitution prevents states from enacting laws that retroactively impair contract obligations. This clause, historically significant for protecting economic stability, has been weakened over time but still imposes limits on state regulations that interfere with existing contracts, especially those involving the state itself. Conclusion Through these cases and tests, the Supreme Court balances government interests with individual rights, ensuring that any law discriminating based on fundamental rights or suspect classifications is thoroughly scrutinized.