West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶199

Intermediate scrutiny, by contrast, allows States to use a classification when it furthers its interests in most applications, even if not all applications. The State can then put the onus on the individual to come forward, as B. P. J. must here, and prove that she does not fit the generalization behind the classification and is in fact similarly situated to the class of people she is being treated differently from, so long as the burdens are not themselves too demanding, see Morales-Santana, 582 U. S., at 66. The State, moreover, can also prove that it did not deny a given exception “unnecessarily” because allowing an exception would jeopardize the very interests the State is attempting to further or come at too high of an administrative cost. See n. 6, su pra. These are attributes of intermediate scrutiny alone.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.