What test does the Supreme Court commonly use to determine whether a limitation on a constitutional right is acceptable?

The Supreme Court of the United States commonly uses several tests to determine whether a limitation on a constitutional right is permissible. The specific test applied often depends on the nature of the right in question and the context of the limitation. Here are three primary tests the Court might employ:

1. Rational Basis Test: This is the most lenient standard of review. A law will typically be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This test is often applied in cases where neither fundamental rights nor suspect classifications (like race or religion) are at issue.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny: This standard is more exacting than rational basis review. It requires that the challenged law or policy must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest. Intermediate scrutiny is often used for classifications based on sex or gender.

3. Strict Scrutiny: This is the most stringent standard of review. To survive strict scrutiny, a law must serve a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. This level of review is reserved for laws that affect fundamental rights (such as free speech, voting, and privacy) or involve suspect classifications.

In matters involving fundamental rights, limitations are generally subject to strict scrutiny, requiring the government to prove that a limitation is justified by a compelling interest and that the means chosen to advance that interest are narrowly tailored. This test ensures that any infringement on a constitutional right is closely examined and justified by a significant need.