Under which circumstances is 'strict scrutiny' applied?

'Strict scrutiny' is a legal standard applied by courts to evaluate laws that potentially infringe upon fundamental rights, particularly those related to individual liberties such as free speech or the right to vote, and laws that discriminate based on race or ethnicity. This high level of scrutiny requires the government to demonstrate that the law serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The reason why this standard is used when reviewing laws that discriminate based on race or affect fundamental rights is rooted in the principle that these areas are particularly sensitive and require careful examination to protect individual rights and prevent discrimination. Laws that are subjected to 'strict scrutiny' are often presumed unconstitutional unless the government can meet the demanding criteria set forth by the judiciary.

In contrast, other circumstances, such as commercial activity or public safety regulations, may be evaluated under different standards — typically 'rational basis' scrutiny, which is less stringent. Laws related to educational policy may also not reach the same level of scrutiny unless they intersect with fundamental rights or race discrimination. Thus, the application of 'strict scrutiny' is specifically reserved for cases that involve significant protection of constitutional rights and address issues of discrimination, making it a critical tool for safeguarding individual freedoms in the judicial system.