Omar Bennett
The standard of review is the degree of deference given by a court or tribunal when reviewing a lower court's decision. In the context of constitutional review, the standard of review concerns how much deference the judiciary should give the legislature in determining whether legislation is constitutional. There are three basic standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. These levels of scrutiny are normally applied to legislation but can also be applied to judicial acts and precedents. A high standard of review means that deference is given to the decision under review, and it will not be overturned unless the higher court considers the decision to have an obvious error. Conversely, a low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if any error is found by the reviewing court.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Standard of review | Rational basis |
| Intermediate scrutiny | |
| Strict scrutiny | |
| Level of scrutiny | Low standard of review: the decision will be overturned if there is any error |
| High standard of review: the decision will not be overturned unless there is an obvious error | |
| De novo review | The court acts as if it were considering the question for the first time |
| No deference is given to the lower court or agency | |
| Reasonableness standard of review | Determines whether a federal agency's action demonstrates a reasonable exercise of agency discretion |
| Arbitrary or capricious standard of review | Determines whether a federal agency's interpretation of a statute is arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with the law |
| Hard look review | Determines what constitutes a reasonable interpretation |
| Substantial evidence standard | Examines whether there is any relevant evidence in the record that reasonably supports every material fact |
Explore related products
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61qrQ6YZVOL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
What You'll Learn
Rational basis
Constitutional review, also known as constitutionality review or constitutional control, is a system that evaluates the constitutionality of laws to prevent violations of the rights granted by a constitution. There are three standards of constitutional review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.
This answer will focus on the rational basis standard of review.
The rational basis standard of review is one of the basic standards of constitutional review. It involves examining the rationale or justification behind a decision or action to determine whether it meets the constitutional requirements. This standard of review considers the reasons and evidence supporting a particular course of action or ruling. It assesses whether the decision-making process was reasonable and based on relevant facts and information.
The rational basis standard of review is applied to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation, judicial acts, and precedents. It can be used to assess whether a law or action is arbitrary or capricious, and whether it was made with a reasonable exercise of discretion by the decision-maker. This standard requires a reviewing court to determine if there was a rational connection between the decision or action taken and the objective or purpose it aimed to achieve.
The rational basis standard sets a relatively low bar for laws or actions to be considered constitutional. It does not require a perfect or ideal decision-making process, but rather a rational and reasonable one. The rationale behind the decision or action does not have to be the best or only course of action, but it must be justifiable based on the information available at the time.
In the context of judicial review, the rational basis standard may be applied when reviewing lower court decisions. It allows the reviewing court to assess the decision-making process of the lower court and determine if it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts and evidence presented. The reviewing court can then decide if the lower court's decision should be upheld or overturned based on the rationality and reasonableness of the process and rationale.
Overall, the rational basis standard of review plays a crucial role in ensuring that decisions, actions, and laws meet a minimum standard of rationality and reasonableness, protecting against arbitrary or capricious rulings and promoting a more robust and fair legal system.
Constitution of 1917: Land Reform and Agrarian Rights
You may want to see also
Intermediate scrutiny
Constitutional review, also known as constitutionality review or constitutional control, is a system for preventing the violation of rights granted by a constitution, ensuring its efficacy, stability, and preservation.
In the context of sex-based classifications, intermediate scrutiny applies to constitutional challenges of equal protection and discrimination. An example of this is seen in Craig v. Boren, which was the first case in the United States Supreme Court to determine that statutory or administrative sex-based classifications were subject to an intermediate standard of judicial review. In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the burden is on the proponent of the discrimination to establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for sex-based classification to be valid.
In the free speech context, intermediate scrutiny is the test or standard of review that courts apply when analyzing content-neutral speech versus content-based speech. Content-neutral laws are evaluated by the nature and scope of the speech regarding the time, place, and manner of communication. Intermediate scrutiny applies to regulations that do not directly target speech but have a substantial impact on a particular message. It also applies to time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, with the additional requirement of "adequate alternative channels of communication."
Sexual Harassment: What's Not Covered at Work
You may want to see also
Strict scrutiny
In the context of free speech, content-based and viewpoint-based laws are evaluated under strict scrutiny. The government must show that there is a compelling, or very strong, interest in the law, and that the law is either very narrowly tailored or is the least speech-restrictive means available. For example, in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Supreme Court invalidated a Florida city law that targeted the Santeria religion and its practice of animal sacrifices.
In the United States, strict scrutiny was introduced in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), which was one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases.
Framers' Intent: Democracy or Republic?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
De novo review
The standard of review in de novo review is set at a high level, meaning that the decision of the lower court will not be overturned unless the reviewing court considers there to be an obvious error. This is in contrast to a low standard of review, where any error, no matter how minor, can result in the lower court's decision being varied or overturned.
The term "standard of review" refers to the amount of deference given by a higher court when reviewing the decision of a lower court. In the context of constitutional review, the standard of review concerns the level of deference the judiciary gives to the legislature in determining the constitutionality of legislation. Constitutional review, also known as constitutionality review or constitutional control, is a process aimed at preventing violations of the rights granted by the constitution and ensuring its stability and preservation.
Constitutional Provisions: Different Interpretations Than Statues?
You may want to see also
Reasonableness standard
The reasonableness standard of review is one of the three standards of constitutional review, alongside rational basis and strict scrutiny. This standard requires a reviewing court to determine whether a federal agency's actions demonstrate a reasonable exercise of agency discretion, as supported by the record.
The reasonableness standard is concerned with the amount of deference given by one court in reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that a decision may be overturned if any error is found in the lower court's decision, whereas a high standard of review means that deference is given to the decision, and it will not be overturned unless the higher court considers the decision to contain an obvious error.
The reasonableness standard is also applied in the context of administrative review, where courts assess the actions of administrators against standards of reasonableness and abuse of discretion. If an administrator's actions are deemed unreasonable or involving an abuse of discretion, they are declared null and void.
In the United States, the standard of review also pertains to the level of deference the judiciary gives to Congress when ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. This standard of review is sometimes referred to as the "legal error" standard, as it allows the appeals court to substitute its judgment for that of the lower court on how to apply the law.
Understanding the Nervous System: Central and Peripheral Divisions
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The three basic standards of constitutional review are rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.
The standard of review is the amount of deference given by a court when reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal.
De novo review is when the reviewing court acts as if it were considering the question for the first time, giving no deference to the decision made by the lower court or tribunal.
