1.4 Constitutional Justiciability, Scrutiny Tiers & Fundamental Rights

🎯 Essential Doctrinal Takeaways

• Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability; vague 'someday' plans fail the imminence prong.
• State statutes that discriminate against interstate commerce on their face or in practical effect face virtually per se invalidity under strict scrutiny.
• Age classifications receive rational basis review; the challenger bears the burden of disproving any conceivable legitimate state interest.
• Content-based speech regulations in traditional public forums (sidewalks, parks) are presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny.

The federal judicial power under Article III extends only to 'cases' and 'controversies.' In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court articulated the three irreducible constitutional requirements for standing: an injury-in-fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; a causal nexus fairly traceable to the challenged action; and a likelihood of judicial redressability.

Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, states may not enact protectionist legislation that discriminates against interstate commerce. Discriminatory laws are subject to strict scrutiny and are virtually per se invalid unless the state demonstrates that the regulation advances a legitimate local health or safety purpose that cannot be achieved through reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives (Dean Milk Co. v. Madison).

Equal Protection scrutiny is strictly tiered. Classifications based on race or national origin receive strict scrutiny (compelling interest, narrowly tailored). Classifications based on sex or non-marital status receive intermediate scrutiny (important objective, substantially related). All other classifications, including age, disability, and economic regulation, receive rational basis review.

⚠️ NextGen Bar Examination Traps & Pitfalls

• Believing an ideological or aesthetic interest in wildlife creates standing without a personal, imminent, concrete injury.
• Applying the Pike balancing test to state laws that discriminate against out-of-state economic competitors.
• Classifying age or wealth as suspect or quasi-suspect classes requiring heightened scrutiny.