Fundamentally Wrong About Fundamental Rights
Adam Winkler
Abstract
Adam Winkler
Abstract
This short essay argues that the traditional and often repeated notion that laws burdening fundamental rights receive strict scrutiny is wrong. Many fundamental rights are not protected by strict scrutiny but by lesser standards or by categorical rules. Even rights, such as speech, free exercise of religion, and privacy, which do trigger strict scrutiny only do so occasionally; in many speech, religion, and privacy cases, the courts require the government to meet far less burdensome standards. In short, fundamental rights are governed by strict scrutiny only some of the time.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This short essay argues that the traditional and often repeated notion that laws burdening fundamental rights receive strict scrutiny is wrong. Many fundamental rights are not protected by strict scrutiny but by lesser standards or by categorical rules. Even rights, such as speech, free exercise of religion, and privacy, which do trigger strict scrutiny only do so occasionally; in many speech, religion, and privacy cases, the courts require the government to meet far less burdensome standards. In short, fundamental rights are governed by strict scrutiny only some of the time.
Key concepts: Scrutiny, Fundamental rights, Law and economics, Government (linguistics), Law, Political science, Free speech, Sociology