Strict scrutiny, moderate scrutiny, and logical basis scrutiny are three tests.
To evaluate the legitimacy of differential treatment based on a suspicious classification, a Strict scrutiny test is applied (race, ethnic origin, religion).
In free exercise clause cases, the court previously applied strict scrutiny more frequently, as in Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), but the Employment Division v. Smith decision altered the approach (1990).
When a plaintiff accuses the government of discrimination, the courts frequently use strict scrutiny. The law must have been carefully crafted to satisfy a "compelling governmental interest" and have been passed by the legislature in order to pass rigorous scrutiny.
A law impacting a fundamental right must have a compelling state purpose in order to pass under the Strict Scrutiny criterion. In order to accomplish the goal or interest of the government, the law must also be carefully crafted.
To know more about Strict Scrutiny refer to: brainly.com/question/11550284
#SPJ1
<span>Nicaragua - plato
This is the answer, hope it helps :)
</span>
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific observations. Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. ... Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false.
No, the American mainland was not futher attacked
hope this helps
