Final answer:
C. Strict scrutiny.
The state has the highest burden under strict scrutiny, which involves demonstrating a compelling state interest and ensuring the law is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means. This level of scrutiny is reserved for cases of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion and is rarely met. Intermediate scrutiny and rational basis test apply to gender discrimination and most other forms, respectively.
Step-by-step explanation:
The state must meet the highest burden of proof under strict scrutiny, which is a level of analysis used in Equal Protection cases.
Strict scrutiny requires the state to prove that the law or policy in question serves a compelling governmental interest, is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and is the least restrictive means available. This standard is typically applied in cases involving discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. Laws that discriminate on these grounds are almost always deemed unconstitutional.
For example, laws that discriminate against racial or religious groups must withstand strict scrutiny. This was evident in the landmark case regarding affirmative action policies, where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of considering race as one factor among many in college admissions to achieve a diverse student body under strict scrutiny.
By contrast, intermediate scrutiny applies to cases of gender discrimination, requiring the government to show that the discriminatory practice substantially relates to an important governmental objective. The rational basis test, which applies to most other forms of discrimination, requires only that the discriminatory practice is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.