Determine if the situation involves a fundamental right
either the right is fundamental or it's not
if the right is a fundamental right, then strict scrutiny applies.
If not, rational basis applies.
See Washington v. Glucksberg, where the Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide; thus, Washington law prohibiting the aiding/abetting of suicide must only withstand review under the (HIGHLY deferential) rational basis standard.
Determine if the fundamental right is being infringed or abridges
Obvious: a ban is implemented on the exercise of the right
The Court considers the "directness and substantiality" of the interference.
There is little precedent of what exactly meets this standard.
If the right is truly infringed or abridges, strict scrutiny still applies; if not, rational basis.
Determine if there is sufficient justification for the government's infringement of the fundamental right
The government now has the burden to persuade the court regarding the necessity of the interest.
Justification that are most likely to succeed: national security, public health/safety, integrity of democratic processes, remedying past discrimination.
Determine if the means are necessary and sufficiently related to the (narrowly tailored) purpose
The law must be necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest; truly, there must be no alternative
If the government could achieve the objective via less restrictive means, then the law or action fails.