This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
  1. KudoZ™ Top
  2. English
  3. Government / Politics

sustain judicial scrutiny

English translation: have been scrutinised by the (highest) Courts and upheld

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
English term or phrase:sustain judicial scrutiny
Selected answer:have been scrutinised by the (highest) Courts and upheld
Entered by: Gulnara Krokhaleva

12:39 Apr 14, 2015
English language (monolingual) [PRO]
Law/Patents - Government / Politics / Legislation
English term or phrase: sustain judicial scrutiny
Since the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, hundreds of laws have been written, some of which have sustained judicial scrutiny.
Gulnara Krokhaleva
Spain
Local time: 23:22
have been scrutinised by the (highest) Courts and upheld
Explanation:
.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2015-04-15 08:56:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases. However, a discrepancy was found in the type of religious liberty claim, with most claims for exemption from law failing and no allegedly discriminatory laws surviving.[2]

The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right. It is also important to note that, unlike the rational basis test, the burden of proof falls on the state in cases requiring either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny.
Selected response from:

AllegroTrans
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:22
Grading comment
Thanks a lot!
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED
5have been reviewed, with their constitutionality being upheld.
Charlesp
3 +2have been scrutinised by the (highest) Courts and upheld
AllegroTrans
4 -1(go through and) pass scrutiny by judicial system
Chien Nguyen


  

Answers


48 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): -1
(go through and) pass scrutiny by judicial system


Explanation:
I think it implies the laws have been gone thru and passed the scrutiny by the judicial system, i.e the Department of Justice.
In most countries, the regulations before promulgated must go thru public consultation and importantly the scrutiny by Department of Justice.





Chien Nguyen
Vietnam
Local time: 04:22
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in VietnameseVietnamese, Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  AllegroTrans: thru? is that an English word?
51 mins
  -> sorry, just a "shortcut" for "through", but I am sure people get what I mean. thanks anyway!
disagree  Charlesp: the answer may be ok, but the explanation is all wrong. // Wrong country. Consider the jurisdiction.
4 hrs
  -> In my context, there is a mandatory process that the draft regulations must go through the review/scrutiny by the Ministry of Justice, this is like whistle-blower for regulation issuance. So it is totally not wrong in the provided context.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

4 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5
have been reviewed, with their constitutionality being upheld.


Explanation:
have been reviewed, and their constitutionality upheld. (as contrasted with those statutes that have been struck down -though depending upon context, it could be referring to both),

In some jurisdictions, it would be known as 'subject to judicial review.'


Charlesp
Sweden
Local time: 23:22
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: English
PRO pts in category: 12
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5 peer agreement (net): +2
have been scrutinised by the (highest) Courts and upheld


Explanation:
.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2015-04-15 08:56:33 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts found that laws survive strict scrutiny more than 30% of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases. However, a discrepancy was found in the type of religious liberty claim, with most claims for exemption from law failing and no allegedly discriminatory laws surviving.[2]

The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right. It is also important to note that, unlike the rational basis test, the burden of proof falls on the state in cases requiring either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny.

AllegroTrans
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:22
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 24
Grading comment
Thanks a lot!

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Jack Doughty
5 mins
agree  Chien Nguyen
17 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:
ProZ.com term search
Search millions of term translations
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search