| dbo:abstract
|
- In U.S. constitutional law, when a court finds that a law infringes a fundamental constitutional right, it may apply the strict scrutiny standard to nevertheless hold the law or policy constitutionally valid if the government can demonstrate in court that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the compelling purpose, and uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose. Failure to show these conditions may result in a judge striking down a law as unconstitutional. The standard is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States. The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. One of the most notable cases in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions constitutional was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the forced relocation of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. In another case, it has been held that restricting access to unapproved prescription drugs is a compelling government interest. The burden of proof falls on the state in cases that require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, but not the rational basis. (en)
- 厳格審査（げんかくしんさ、strict scrutiny、exacting scrutiny）は、国家が表現規制を行う際には、それが「やむを得ない政府の利益」を目的としたもので、その手段が、目的の達成のために「必須」または「狭い範囲」のものであることを国家の側が証明しなければならないという法理。アメリカ合衆国連邦最高裁判所においては、表現の自由の問題を審理する際には厳格審査が用いられており、その下で合衆国憲法修正第1条に基づく違憲判決が出されている。 (ja)
|
