I appreciate the shift away from rational basis review when assessing government action based on gender. Cases like Cleary and Muller demonstrate how bias can slip into the subjective definition of a legitimate government purpose. The standards of review function like judicial guardrails or rumble strips. They warn the Court that biases or stereotypes may be influencing certain government actions, prompting a deeper analysis of the action in question. These guardrails help the Court keep true to the future that the drafters of the 14th Amendment envisioned. I think the Court and society are better with them than without them.
The “judicial guardrails” metaphor works well here. The tiers help keep the Court on alert and ensure equality analysis doesn’t drift back into old assumptions.
I appreciate the shift away from rational basis review when assessing government action based on gender. Cases like Cleary and Muller demonstrate how bias can slip into the subjective definition of a legitimate government purpose. The standards of review function like judicial guardrails or rumble strips. They warn the Court that biases or stereotypes may be influencing certain government actions, prompting a deeper analysis of the action in question. These guardrails help the Court keep true to the future that the drafters of the 14th Amendment envisioned. I think the Court and society are better with them than without them.
The “judicial guardrails” metaphor works well here. The tiers help keep the Court on alert and ensure equality analysis doesn’t drift back into old assumptions.