Question

When a law involving a fundamental right is challenged, the standard of review usually applied is:

A) A strict scrutiny standard, and the challenger has the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional
B) An intermediate scrutiny standard, and the government has the burden of proving that the law is substantially related to an important government interest
C) A strict scrutiny standard, and the government has the burden of proving that the law is necessary
D) An intermediate scrutiny standard, and the challenger has the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional

Answer 1

The standard of review usually applied when a law involving a fundamental right is challenged is a strict scrutiny standard, and the burden of proof is on the challenger to prove that the law is unconstitutional.

Step-by-step explanation:

When a law involving a fundamental right is challenged, the standard of review usually applied is A) A strict scrutiny standard, and the challenger has the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional. Under strict scrutiny, the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest in treating people from one group differently from those who are not part of that group, the law can be 'narrowly tailored' to achieve the goal in question, and that it is the 'least restrictive means' available to achieve that goal.