Talk:Intermediate scrutiny

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irrelevant section

The first section, titles "Laws subject to Equal Protection scrutiny", does not say a single word about the subject. The words "intermediate scrutiny" or a related concept don't appear in the text or heading. I'm gonna remove it unless anyone has an objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.156.117.103 (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of "Exceedingly Persuasive Justification?"

The article seems to imply that US v. Virginia (1996) created the "exceedingly persuasive justification" requirement, but Justice O'Connor, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Mississippi Univeristy for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) also uses the "exceedingly persuasive justification" language:

"[T]he party seeking to uphold a statute that classifies individuals on the basis of their gender must carry the burden of showing an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for the classification."

However, the phrase "exceedingly persuasive justification" is also placed in quotes, which may imply that she is citing an even earlier precedent. I'm not sure, but someone who knows more may care to check the facts on this one.

L3prador 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Mississippi University and O'Connor is quoting Personal Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 99 S.Ct. 2282 (1979). I took a quick peek at that case and it seems to be the one where the 'exceedingly persuasive' test was derived from Craig. See Id. at 273. Simonus 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Technical?

Perhaps I'm just a little tired, but this article seems far too weighted down in legal jargon to be of much use to the lay reader. The key part of the article seems to be, "Intermediate scrutiny is met if a regulation involves important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means." What does that mean? Additionally the examples cited don't really discuss why a certain case is an example of strict scrutiny. I'd add the {{technical}} template, but I want to make sure it's not just me. Is there consensus to do so? --Ybbor ^Talk 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching Intermediate Scrutiny

This article should include a section dealing with when a court must apply intermediate scrutiny. It might start something like this: "Before the court applies intermediate scrutiny, it must find that a particular governmental action discriminates against a protected class. Otherwise, the court need only apply rational basis scrutiny." The section should go on to talk about de jure and de facto discrimination, and so on. --G77 (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article needs to talk about how intermediate scrutiny can still be applied to content-based erotic speech restrictions. For example, in Young v. American Mini Theaters, the restriction was specifically against "adult" movie theaters. The law was clearly targeted based on the content of the speech (it listed certain anatomical areas and sexual activities that would get you to the "adult" classification.) However, the court still applied intermediate scrutiny. The distinction is an important one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.144.47 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major Cleanup

Started a major cleanup of this article. Organized the section and added at least one reference (as there were none (don't know how this article survived deletion with no references)). Also added "see also" heading to show related case law. Will be back for more cleanup. Suggestions welcome. Morning277 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Heightened" versus "intermediate" scrutiny?

I was looking at the Witt v. Department of the Air Force article, which uses both the terms "heightened scrutiny" and "intermediate scrutiny". Some Googling seems to show that these are used somewhat interchangeably, and in fact the two terms have no formal legal definition. So:

If they are interchangeable, then this article should mention the other term, and there should probably be a redirect from that term

If there is no formal, widely-accepted legal definition for "intermediate scrutiny" then this article should mention that.

(I don't know the answers myself, so I can't make the changes.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research needed to clear up free speech legal opinions

I don't think the history of free speech law is correctly and consistently described across articles. In particular, I'm looking at the original wording of the O'Brien test, the original "time, place, and manner" restriction, how these were "merged" in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence and how the O'Brien test was "expanded" in City of Ladue v. Gilleo.

In particular, the sourcing of the exact wording used is unclear:

and for the history:

Some research into the original text of decisions and secondary legal sources is necessary. -- Beland (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intermediate scrutiny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108041134/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf to http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/436f323b-5e40-411a-9026-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control (copied from article)

I've copied this to the talk page because it contained no citations. Even though the content is by its own terms not about intermediate scrutiny maybe it can be added to another article:

The Supreme Court has clarified though in its decision in D.C. v. Heller, and in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Court identified text as informed by history as the correct basis of Judicial review. Means and scrutiny are not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnominist (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]