About: Strict scrutiny

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Strict scrutiny Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:Right105174653, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FStrict_scrutiny

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.

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	yago:WikicatCivilRightsAndLiberties yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Abstraction105854150 yago:CivilRight105182563 yago:Cognition100023271 yago:Concept105835747 yago:Content105809192 yago:HumanRight105176846 yago:Idea105833840 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Right105174653
rdfs:label	厳格審査 (ja) Strict scrutiny (en)
rdfs:comment	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) 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. (en)
dcterms:subject	Legal history of the United States Civil rights and liberties United States constitutional law
Wikipage page ID	1112217 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1121023033 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States Judicial review United States Bill of Rights United States constitutional law United States v. Carolene Products Co. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. De jure Due Process Clause Intermediate scrutiny Internment of Japanese Americans Undue burden standard Compulsory sterilization Constitutional right City of Boerne v. Flores Clarence Thomas Employment Division v. Smith Freedom of religion Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal Constitutional law Constitutionality Equal Protection Clause Legal history of the United States Loving v. Virginia Skinner v. Oklahoma Brown v. Board of Education Buck v. Bell U.S. Supreme Court Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt Wisconsin v. Yoder Overbreadth doctrine Amish Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Government interest Prescription drug Griswold v. Connecticut Harvard Law School Civil rights and liberties United States constitutional law Supreme Court of the United States Burden of proof (law) Ex rel Korematsu v. United States Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC New Deal Case citation Race (classification of human beings) Sherbert v. Verner World War II Yick Wo v. Hopkins Racial segregation in the United States Executive Order 9066 Narrow tailoring National origin Presumption of constitutionality Japanese American Rational basis review Suspect classification Fundamental right Bright line rule Equal protection Rational basis Contraceptives Adarand Constructors v. Peña Principle of proportionality
sameAs	Strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Citation_needed dbt:Main_article dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Ussc dbt:US_Constitution dbt:US1stAmendment_Freedom_of_Speech_Clause_Roberts_Court_case_law
has 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)
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:Strict_scrutiny?oldid=1121023033&ns=0

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 54 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software