Government interest

Government or state interest is a concept in law that allows the state to regulate a given matter. The concept may apply differently in different countries, and the limitations of what should and should not be of government interest vary, and have varied over time. In the United States, the concept of government interest arises especially when certain constitutional issues are before a court of law. Under US constitutional jurisprudence, arising from US Supreme Court decisions, the courts weigh the government's interest in a particular subject matter against the impact of restrictions being imposed on the individuals' rights and interests. A compelling governmental interest may override fundamental constitutional rights, if it satisfies the strict scrutiny test. A government interest is compelling if it is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion. When government action infringes an individual's fundamental rights, the government must show that the government's action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. The protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity are considered compelling government interests. Restricting access to unapproved prescription drugs is also a compelling government interest. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, on the other hand, the requirement for compulsory education beyond 8th grade was not compelling in the case of Amish children, based on the parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion. If the subject matter is a legitimate government interest, but does not place a restriction on a fundamental right, the courts will test its validity by applying the rational basis test. Under the Supreme Court's Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, when the government classifies a restriction based on gender, for example, it must show that its actions further an important government interest, under the intermediate scrutiny standard.

À propos de ce résultat

Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.

Publications associées (1)

Concepts associés (8)

Fundamental Limits for Implanted Antennas: Maximum Power Density Reaching Free Space

Anja Skrivervik, Zvonimir Sipus

Medical implants with communication capability are becoming increasingly popular with today’s trends to continuously monitor patient’s condition. This is a major challenge for antenna designers since the implants are inherently small and placed in a commun ...

2019

Droits fondamentaux

thumb|La Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789, une des premières consécration juridiques de droits fondamentaux. Les (parfois libertés fondamentales) sont un ensemble de droits et libertés ayant un caractère essentiel pour l'individu ; ils sont en principe assurés dans un État de droit et une démocratie. Ils comprennent . Dans la doctrine juridique, le concept est relativement récent et il existe plusieurs façons d'appréhender la « fondamentalité » d'un droit ou d'une liberté.

Rational basis review

In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, whether real or hypothetical. The higher levels of scrutiny are intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.

Intermediate scrutiny

Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous). In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.