The courts strictly review the constitutionality of a law after someone sues the government for discrimination. The government must prove that the law is absolutely necessary to justify the possible violation of constitutional rights. A law prohibiting the burning of a state flag, for example, violates the First Amendment; Under strict control, it is unlikely that the state will be able to justify the law as essential. The Latin root of control is scrutinized, „to examine.“ Strict control is a legal term that describes the careful evaluation of laws to ensure that they are constitutional. Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional website » Abogado.com The #1 Spanish Legal Website for Consumers Strict review is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Courts often use rigorous scrutiny when a complainant sues the government for discrimination. To pass a rigorous review, Parliament must have enacted the law to promote a „compelling governmental interest“ and must have closely adapted the law to achieve that interest. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. The Supreme Court`s decision in Village of Arlington Heights v.
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. provided a more precise definition of intent and clarified three specific areas in which the intent of a particular administrative or legislative decision becomes apparent, the existence of which requires a stricter examination of the same protection. The court must conduct a rigorous review if, among other things, any of these criteria are met: the strict standard of judicial review is based on the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts rigorously consider whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that interfere with a right expressly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it considers to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution. The standard is the highest and strictest standard of judicial review and is part of the judicial review that courts apply to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the interest of government in exchange for compliance with the principle. The lower standards are the rational examination of the basis and the precise or intermediate verification. These standards apply to laws and government actions at all levels of government in the United States. Strict control is the strictest form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has determined that the right to vote, the right to travel and the right to privacy are fundamental rights that deserve careful consideration.
In addition, racially discriminatory laws and policies are classified as suspect classifications that are presumed inappropriate and subject to rigorous scrutiny. The notion of „levels of judicial review,“ including rigorous review, was introduced in footnote 4 of the United States Supreme Court`s decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict standard of review and declared the government`s actions constitutional was Korematsu v. the United States (1944), in which the court upheld the forcible transfer of Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. In another case, it was decided that restricting access to unapproved prescription drugs was a compelling government interest.  Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict control is „strict in theory, deadly in fact“ because the public perception is that most of the laws subject to the standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict review decisions in federal courts found that laws survive rigorous scrutiny in more than 30% of cases.
In one area of law, religious freedom, laws that affect religious freedom have survived rigorous scrutiny in nearly 60 percent of cases. However, there was a divergence in the nature of the demand for religious freedom, with most requests for exemption from the law failing and no allegedly discriminatory laws surviving.  However, see also the cases listed below; Some appear to allow exemptions to laws based on religious freedom. The presumption of constitutionality does not apply when strictly examined; The burden of proof of the constitutionality of a law lies with prosecutors.