Final answer:
Arguments can be made for both minimal and heightened scrutiny for wealth-based discrimination. Minimal scrutiny allows for economic liberty and the ability to accumulate wealth, while heightened scrutiny ensures equality and prevents discrimination based on wealth.
Step-by-step explanation:
Arguments can be made for both minimal and heightened scrutiny for wealth-based discrimination.
Minimal scrutiny, also known as rational basis review, is a lower standard of review applied by the courts. Under this standard, a law or action will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. In the context of wealth-based discrimination, a minimal scrutiny standard may be argued in favor of allowing economic liberty and the ability to accumulate wealth without significant government interference.
On the other hand, heightened scrutiny, also known as strict scrutiny, is a higher standard of review applied by the courts. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and show that the law or action is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest and is the least restrictive means available. In the context of wealth-based discrimination, heightened scrutiny may be argued in favor of ensuring equality and preventing discrimination based on wealth, particularly if it disproportionately affects certain minority groups.