[SOUND]. Whenever the Supreme Court deals. Whenever any court deals with individual liberties, it's all right. The outcome depends on the level of scrutiny used. There are Three Levels of Scrutiny. The first is called the Rational Basis Test. The Rational Bases Test says that the government action it held so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. When It's rationally bases review the lost of held. Long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. For example, when the government is treating people differently on account of age, it only has to meet a Rational Basis with you. Each of my four children before they turned 16 believe that the laws that denied them the opportunity to get a driver's licence, violated their equal protection rights and discriminate against them. But only Rational Basis review was used. The laws upheld so long as it's rationally related to legitimate government purposes. Notice in this test, rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, that the government's goal just tends to be something that's permissible, legitimate for the government to do. The means chosen just has to be a reasonable way of achieving the goal. It is a test that very deferential to the government. The government usually wins, under Rational Basis review. Shouldn't be surprising then, that when it's rational basis review, the challenger has the burden of proof. The challenger has to show that it's unconstitutional. I can count if not on the fingers on one hand, less than the fingers of two hands, all of the cases since 1937 where the Supreme Court has declared a law unconstitutional using rational basis review. Rational basis review is tremendously differential to the government. The 2nd Level of Scrutiny is called Intermediate Scrutiny. Intermediate Scrutiny is used if the government discriminates based on sex, or if the government discriminates against non-marital children, or if the government's regulating certain kinds of speech, like commercial advertising, commercial speech. The test for intermediate scrutiny is that the law is upheld if it is and I'm quoting substantially related to an important government purpose. Notice the government's purpose has to be important, not just something that's legitimate for the government to do. In fact, under in intermediate scrutiny, the court will look only at the government's actual purpose. When the rational basis review, laws have held so long as there's some conceivable purpose. And a law's upheld under intermediate scrutiny, only if the government action is perceived as substantially related in an important way to achieve the government's objective. When it's Intermediate Scrutiny the test is is the government action substantially related to an important government purpose? And remember, the government has the burden of proof. The 3rd type of review is called Strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the most exacting type of review. Under Strict scrutiny, the law will be upheld, only if it is shown to be necessary to achieving a compelling government interest. Notice the government's goal must be more than something, that's legitimate for the government to do. More even that with the court regards is important. The court has to be persuaded that the government's objection is crucial, vital, compelling. Also, under strict scrutiny, the means chosen has to be necessary to attain the goal. This is were least restrictable term of analysis is used. When Strict Scrutiny is the test, the government must show that there is no less restrictive alternative, no less discriminate what we mean, that it can achieve it's goal. Strict Scrutiny as I said is the most rigorous type overview, Strict Scrutiny is not differential to the government, Strict Scrutiny is generally used for race discrimination, discrimination based on national origin. Generally used for discrimination on the basis of citizenship. Also, it's often used under the first amendment, as I'll talk about in part eight of my lecture. More generally, it's used for fundamental rights under the constitution. When the government discriminates on the basis of a fundamental right, it's going to have to meet Strict Scrutiny. If you think about The Levels of Scrutiny, they're all about how the weights are arranged in the balance. For Rational Basis Review, the weights are arranged on the side of the government. And in order to outweigh the government's interests it's going to take a great deal. For Strict Scrutiny the weights are arrange against the government. In order for the government to win, it's going to take substantial showing, it's going to have to compelling interest, no other way to achieve it. Intermediate Scrutiny, well that's more balanced. For Intermediate Scrutiny, it's more like an even balancing. Throughout the rest of my lecture, I'm going to referring Rational Basis Review, Intermediate Scrutiny, Strict Scrutiny. What's key is so often the outcome in the case depends on the level of scrutiny used. Rational basis review. We're actually relating a legitimate government purpose, the government usually wins. In immediate scrutiny, the law's upheld if it substantially related to an important government purpose. Strict scrutiny, the law's upheld only if it's necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. And the outcome as I say is so likely depend on the level of scrutiny used.