Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=897360
 
 

Citations (9)



 
 

Footnotes (350)



 


 



Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts


Adam Winkler


University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law


Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 793, 2006
UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-14

Abstract:     
A popular myth in American constitutional law is that the strict scrutiny standard of review applied to enforce rights such as free speech and equal protection is, in the famous words of Gerald Gunther, 'strict' in theory and fatal in fact. In recent years, however, this traditional understanding of strict scrutiny's inevitable deadliness has been challenged in high-profile cases such as Adarand Constructors v. Pena, where the Supreme Court expressed the wish to dispel the notion that strict scrutiny is 'strict' in theory, but fatal in fact, and Grutter v. Bollinger, where the Court turned wish into action and upheld an affirmative action policy under strict scrutiny. According to the Court in Grutter, when applying strict scrutiny, [c]ontext matters.

This Article offers a systematic empirical study of strict scrutiny in the federal courts. Reporting the results of a census of every strict scrutiny decision published by the district, circuit, and Supreme courts between 1990 and 2003, this study shows that strict scrutiny is far from the inevitably deadly test imagined by the Gunther myth and more closely resembles the context-sensitive tool described by O'Connor. Overall, 30% of all applications of strict scrutiny - nearly one in three - result in the challenged law being upheld. Rather than fatal in fact, strict scrutiny is survivable in fact, and is so across constitutional doctrine: 27% of suspect classifications, 22% of free speech restrictions, 24% of fundamental rights infringements, 33% of freedom of association burdens, and 59% of religious liberty burdens adjudicated under strict scrutiny survive.

Employing logistic regression, this Article shows that this high survival rate for a supposedly fatal standard of review is context-sensitive. Although political ideology and regional variation are found to have no significant impact on voting in strict scrutiny cases, courts are strongly influenced by the identity of the governmental actor. Most prominently, laws adopted by the federal government are far more likely to survive (50%) than those adopted by state (29%) or local (17%) governments. Surprisingly, however, strict scrutiny has become more fatal in the years since Adarand declared the standard to be survivable (from 40% in the early 1990s to 20% in the early 2000s).

I also offer an in-depth look at strict scrutiny cases within each area of law where that standard is found, showing which types of laws are more likely to be upheld than others even within discrete doctrines.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 80

Keywords: Strict scrutiny in federal courts, consitutional law

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 18, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Winkler, Adam, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 793, 2006; UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-14. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897360

Contact Information

Adam Winkler (Contact Author)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law ( email )
385 Charles E. Young Dr. East
Room 1242
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 7,454
Downloads: 1,276
Download Rank: 7,165
Citations:  9
Footnotes:  350

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.313 seconds