Strict Scrutiny (pp. 634–657)
Standard: to withstand strict scrutiny, the law must be necessary to achieve a compelling purpose.
- The action must be narrowly tailored to the specific compelling interest.
- The government has the burden of proving the compelling purpose.
- Generally, this level of scrutiny is fatal.
Strict Scrutiny Striking Down Government Action
- Loving v. Virginia (1967) — the end of anti-miscegenation statutes; "equal application" of a statute containing a racial classification does not make it constitutional.
- Palmore v. Sidoti (1984) — the effects of private racial prejudice cannot justify a racial classification; strict scrutiny still applies even when designed to protect those classified.
Government Action Withstanding Strict Scrutiny
- Korematsu v. United States (1944) — pressing public necessity (wartime) may constitute a compelling purpose. No longer good law — see Trump v. Hawaii ("Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided").
Affirmative Action (related context)
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978) & Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) — race may be considered as a "plus factor" in holistic admissions; strict racial quotas not allowed.
- Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard/UNC (2023) — diversity is no longer a compelling interest; explicit consideration of race in admissions is not narrowly tailored. Effectively ended race-conscious admissions.
- Race-neutral remedial measures (e.g., the Texas "Top 10%" / 6% system) currently remain constitutional.