United States v. Hemani · ¶85
Constitutional adjudication through means-ends scrutiny is squarely within the competence of courts. Indeed, for other constitutional rights, courts regularly assess whether the government's justification for a law is legitimate and whether the law's operation is sufficiently tailored to promote that justification. See, e. g., Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155, 164, 171–172 (2015) (applying strict scrutiny, under the First Amendment, to a content-based restriction on speech); City of Austin v. Reagan Nat. Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U. S. 61, 69, 76–77 (2022) (holding that intermediate scrutiny, under the First Amendment, applied to a content-neutral law); Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U. S. 47, 58 (2017) (applying heightened scrutiny, under the Fifth Amendment, to a gender-based immigration law); Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 509 (2005) (applying strict scrutiny,…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.