The U.S. Supreme Court has historically recognized its role as interpreter and not writer of law. There are certain speed bumps it employs, therefore, to allow the political branches to each make their own respective determinations as to what is and is not Constitutional, whenever possible.
To that end, when the Supreme Court hears a case challenging a law or executive action on Constitutional grounds, it doesn’t make decisions arbitrarily—it applies specific legal standards to determine whether that law violates the Constitution. These standards of review shape everything from civil rights cases to economic regulations, influencing how much authority the government has over individuals and businesses.
This video is a supercut of my four-part series on the Supreme Court’s standards of review, combining them into a single deep dive into how the Court evaluates constitutional challenges. The level of scrutiny a law faces can determine whether it survives or gets struck down. Rational basis review allows most laws to stand, while strict scrutiny puts the government to the toughest test, often leading to laws being overturned. Understanding these standards is key to knowing how legal arguments are built and how rights are protected (or limited) in court.
Legal scholars note that these tests aren’t just theoretical—they have real-world consequences. Cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973) turned on how the Court applied scrutiny to government actions. More recently, challenges to free speech, voting laws, and executive orders all hinge on the same framework.
At the end of this video, I apply these standards live to a recent Supreme Court decision on the TikTok ban, showing exactly how the justices worked through the legal framework. Whether you follow constitutional law closely or just want to understand how courts decide what’s legal and what’s not, this video breaks it all down.
Share this post