Strict Scrutiny
Strict Scrutiny
Strict Scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of
certain laws.
Strict scrutiny is used to analyze laws that restrict the freedom of speech
It is also used when a law targets a specific religious faith.
For example the U.S Supreme court in 2004 invalidated a federal law known as the Child Online
Protection Act( COPA) because it did not survive the strict scrutiny.
To past the strict scrutiny the government must show that the law is necessary to achieve a
compelling interest. It must also be narrowly tethered to meet that interest.
It makes sure that the government interest is advanced in the least speech-restrictive way
possible.
Courts use a three part test to determine whether a law meets the strict scrutiny standard.
The test looks at :
The purpose of the law
How the law will be enforced
If there are any less restrictive alternatives to the law
One of the most common use of strict scrutiny is in cases of recial profiling.
In the case of Washington v Davis the supreme court ruled that the strict scrutiny standard
applies in cases of racial profiling.
The advantage of strict scrutiny is that it doesn't allow the law to be too restrictive to the people's
freedom of speech.
It does not allow the law to justify the discriminative actions of the government.
The constitution of Kenya article 1 states that the sovereign are the people. Therefore the laws
that restrict their freedom to speech are unconstitutional.