Final answer:
Strict scrutiny is applied in the case of a state law that denies government benefits based on alienage, which is option A. This high level of judicial review requires the state to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest for the discrimination and show that no less restrictive means are available to achieve that interest.
Step-by-step explanation:
In which of the following cases would strict scrutiny of a government action be applied to determine whether the action violates equal protection? The answer is A) A state law denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage. Strict scrutiny is applied when a government action discriminates on the basis of race, ethnic origin, or national origin, and alienage typically falls under these categories. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that its action is necessary to achieve a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
For example, if a state law denies benefits based on alienage, it must be shown that this denial serves a compelling governmental interest and that no less discriminatory alternative exists. However, there are some exceptions, such as when the federal government discriminates based on alienage or when the discrimination is related to self-government process, which is not subject to strict scrutiny.
Therefore, options B, C, and D would likely be subject to a different standard of review, such as rational basis or intermediate scrutiny, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the governmental action in question.