Government Interests
Government laws and regulations subject to strict scrutiny under either constitutional or statutory standards must advance a compelling government interest.
Recall the four basic constitutional levels of scrutiny:
Rational basis
Rational basis “with teeth”
Intermediate scrutiny: substantial (or important) interest
Strict scrutiny: compelling interest
In today’s cases, we see several interests that the government asserts are compelling: taxes (Lee); health (Baumgartner); public order (Swann); and anti-discrimination (Bob Jones). Do you find all of these interests compelling? What else might you add to the list?
Some general questions to consider: What counts as “compelling”? What if there are competing government interests on both sides of a case? How do we conceptualize the government interest: relating to an individual’s compliance, or aggregated and relating to everyone’s compliance?
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)
Baumgartner v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, 490 N.E.2d 1319 (Ill. App. 1986)
Swann v. Pack, 527 S.W.2d 99 (1975)
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)